ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053726
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Anthony Olorungbohunmi | Charlies Dog Campus |
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-00065713-001 | 30/08/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/11/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
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. The parties were afforded an opportunity to examine and cross-examine each other’s evidence. All evidence was given under oath or by affirmation.
Background:
A hearing was scheduled for 14 November 2024. Both parties were informed by letter dated 11 October 2024. The respondent did not attend but I am satisfied they were correctly advised of the date, time and place of the hearing. They gave no reason for not attending the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits he and the respondent were in contact and agreed that Mr Olorungbohunmi would start working at Charlies dog Campus on Wednesday, 10 July 2024 as a dog groomer. The rate of pay and other terms and conditions were not finalised in advance. The complainant said he expected to confirm his pay when he started work. The complainant started work on 10 July 2024. He found that the equipment to carry out his work was either broken or not good enough to do the job. The 2 razors were rusty and blunt. Two dryers were broken and he was left to use an ordinary human hair dryer. This led to him taking 3 hours to dry the hair of the first dog. He decided that he could not continue the work and told the respondent by phone. The owner, Mr Seamus Reilly, was unhappy and said he would not pay the complainant for his time so far. The complainant told the owner of two dogs that he could not groom the dogs and they should seek a refund. The complainant did not return to work. He feels he should be paid for the five hours he was at the respondent’s workplace. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend and provided no written submission. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the absence of any written submission or oral evidence from the respondent, I accept the uncontested evidence of the complainant, who presented as a credible witness. Given the lack of equipment and the reaction of Mr Reilly when he discussed this with him the complainant chose not to return to the respondent’s workplace. In the circumstances outlined I conclude the complainant should have been paid for the day’s work. I award the complainant payment of seven hours at the rate of the Minimum Wage, €12.70; a total of €88.90. |
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.
For the reasons given above I find the complaint is well founded and I award the complainant €88.90 to be paid by the respondent. |
Dated: 22nd November 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
Key Words:
Complaint well founded. |