ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047503

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Rupinder Singh	Rasoi Limited

Representatives

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00058559-001	29/08/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/02/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Specifically, I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence in relation to his complaint. Although I am satisfied that the Respondent was properly notified of the hearing, they chose not to attend on the day.

Background:

The Complainant stated that his employment as a Kitchen Porter with the Respondent began on 30 October 2021 and ended on 3 March 2023. He alleged that he was underpaid in the amount of €2,944 during his period of employment.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant stated that he was underpaid by the Respondent in the amount of €2,944. This comprised of unpaid wages as well as outstanding holiday pay.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend the hearing to present evidence.

Findings and Conclusions:

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”) defines wages as:

“any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—

(a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise,”

In Marek Balans -v- Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 approving Dunnes Stores (Cornels court) Limited -v- Lacey [2007] 1 1.R. 478, it was stated a decision-maker must firstly determine what wages are properly payable under the employment contract before determining whether there has been a deduction under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. While each case will turn on its own particular facts, it is necessary to ascertain, in the instant case, (1) whether the pay constituted a term of the Complainant’s contract and (2) if has there been a contravention of Section 5 of the Act.

Given the uncontradicted evidence of the Complainant, I am satisfied that he was not paid in the amount of €2,944 that he was owed by the Respondent. This amount includes unpaid wages as well as outstanding holiday pay.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I find that this complaint is well founded for the reasons set out above and direct that the Respondent pays an amount of €2,944 to the Complainant.

Dated: 29th April 2024.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill

Key Words: