Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jeroen  Proos

Human + Kind Ltd.

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Sinead Mcnamara FitzGerald Legal & Advisory

In liquidation, nonattendance

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-00052882-001

19/09/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00053397-001

24/10/2022

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The respondent did not attend for the hearing of this matter.  The WRC was informed a number of days before the hearing that the respondent was in liquidation.  The liquidator subsequently informed the WRC that they would not be attending the hearing of this matter but relied upon documentation submitted prior to the hearing.  No witnesses attended the hearing for the respondent to attest the veracity or otherwise of the documentation.  The documentation submitted therefore remained untested.

The complainant attended the hearing and gave his evidence under oath.

The complainant submitted that he co-founded the respondent Company in March 2013 and that he is a former director and is a minority shareholder and that he was an employee of the respondent from its incorporation up until his unfair dismissal on the 14 November 2022. At all material times, he was employed as an Executive.

The complainant submitted that he commenced employment on a salary of €75,000 (gross) per annum. In August 2019, his salary was increased to €96,000 and in January 2021, it increased again €126,000 (€10,500 per month). The complainant submitted that thereafter he was paid the sum of €10,500 gross monthly in arrears until such time as his salary was unlawfully reduced by the respondent. The complainant submitted that at all material times he was entitled to be paid the sum of €10,500 gross per month.

The complainant submitted that he was notified by way of emails dated the 15 and 16 November 2021 that his employment was being terminated. Pursuant to his amended employment contract he was entitled to a 12 month notice period in the event of termination of his employment. The complainant’s employment terminated on the 14 November 2022.

The complainant submitted that in January 2022, the respondent unilaterally reduced his salary to €6,250,00 per month. He noted that the respondent wrote to him seeking his agreement to a reduction in his salary, however he submitted that he did not agree or consent to this reduction. He made his position was made clear to the respondent by way of a letter from his solicitors, dated 18 January 2022.

The complainant submitted that in April 2022, the respondent further unilaterally reduced his salary to €1,500 per month. He was paid €1,500 gross per month from April 2022 until his termination in November 2022.

The complainant submitted that at all material times, he did not consent to this further salary reduction and noted that the respondent did not consult or engage with the complainant in relation to the reduction and it was imposed on a unilateral basis.

Oral evidence:

The complainant stated that he co-founded the company in 2013 and was the general manager with responsibility for sales and marketing.  He noted that the company produces natural skin care products for international markets. The complainant noted that there was a longer notice period in his contract then as usual, but this was inserted by agreement at the outset and subsequently amended.

The complainant stated that he got a phone call in early November from the CEO who sought to renegotiate his contract. The complainant stated that the employment relationship was challenging. The complainant noted that in 2021 the Board of the Company decided to pay him less, as a result of water damage to a shipping container that resulted in a €300,000 product loss.

By way of background the complainant explained that from July 2021 to September 2021, the respondent reduced his salary to €4,436.00 gross per month. The complainant noted that he had agreed to this reduction on the basis that the respondent would reimburse the shortfall to him when the financial position of the company improved. The complainant noted that this does not form part of his claim. From October 2021 to December 2021, he was paid his contractual gross monthly salary of €10,500.

He stated that his salary was left short from January 2022 until the end of his employment in November 2022.

The liquidator did not attend the hearing of this matter.  Although written submissions were sent into the WRC prior to the hearing, no witnesses attended the hearing to support the respondent’s version of events.

The complainant gave his evidence in a forthright manner providing additional information when necessary, according to the documentation that he had in his possession and to the queries of the adjudicator.  I found him to be a credible witness.  Neither the respondent nor the liquidator attended the hearing of this matter and accordingly, the complainant’s evidence went unchallenged.

CA-00052882-001: Payment of wages

The complainant had the benefit of legal advice when completing his claim form.  This complaint form was submitted on 19/09/2022 wherein the complainant noted a shortfall in his wages amounting to €49,250. Having considered the information provided, I am satisfied that the complainant has established the veracity of his complaint

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this complaint, I find that the complaint is well founded and that there was a shortfall in his wages.

CA-00053397-001: Payment of wages

The complainant had the benefit of legal advice when completing his claim form.  This complaint was submitted on 24/10/2022 wherein he noted a shortfall of his wages amounting to €4,373.  Having considered the information provided, I am satisfied that the complainant has established the veracity of this complaint

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this complaint, I find that the complaint is well founded and that there was a shortfall in his wages.

CA-00052882-001

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that there was a shortfall in the complainant’s wages.  I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €49,250 less any lawful deductions.

CA-00053397-001

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that there was a shortfall in the complainant’s wages.  I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €4,373 less any lawful deductions.

Payment of Wages – complainant established claim – compensation awarded