Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Conall  Collins

Zenoz Ltd

Representatives

  The claimant represented himself

William Wall Peninsula

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-00054505-001

16/01/2023

The claimant was employed as a senior manager with the respondent from the 1st.June 2020 to the 20th.Jan. 2023.The claimant submitted that the respondent was in breach of the Act for failing to pay him a shortfall in wages amounting to €2,5983.19 when his employment ended on the 16th.Jan. 2023. In a later submission , the claimant quantified the loss as €1,881.89.The claimant further submitted that he was also owed 4 weeks notice as provided for in his contract of employment and which remained unpaid and submitted that he had paid €875 to a colleague which was now owed to him by the respondent. The claimant also sought recoupment of €197.14 DHL charges which he had paid from his own resources .

The respondent denied that there was any breach of the Act and submitted that in any event the complaint was out of time

The claimant submitted that over the course of 2022 , he did not receive one full payment that corresponds with his payslips. He submitted that payment was sporadic and sometimes he would not be paid for up to 3 months. In 2022 , he received a pay rise for taking on additional responsibilities and for supervising a colleague. The claimant submitted bank statements into evidence setting out the accumulating shortfall in wages. He asserted that by the 28th.July 2022 he had accumulated  a shortfall in wages amounting to €3,512.The claimant maintained that for a period of 4 months between August and October 2022 he did not receive   his earnings from the respondent  .A lump sum of €4,500 was lodged in his account on the 3rd.November 2022.

The claimant stated that he paid for a colleagues wages amounting to €875 when the respondent was unable to pay .The claimant asserted that he paid his colleagues wages on the basis that he would receive the amount back from the respondent. Additionally , the claimant submitted that  he paid for 2 DHL shipments amounting to €197.14 and had been assured he would be fully reimbursed for these payments. The claimant submitted copies of text messages sent to the respondent seeking payment of outstanding wages and advanced that he gave the respondent ample opportunity to rectify the underpayments. The claimant asserted that his contract provided for 4 weeks notice amounting to €2,143.46.

In a post hearing submission , the claimant set out a record of payments made to him in 2022 which he submitted demonstrated that by the 19th.July 2022 he had accumulated a shortfall in wages amounting to €8,196.81 .He submitted that this was evidence of a breach of the Act within the 6 month time frame and that as his complaint was received by the WRC on the 16th.Jan. 2023, the complaint would have to be deemed to be in time.

The claimant referenced the grievance procedure and submitted that he had made numerous attempts to resolve the matter and secure prompt payment of wages. He would have referred the case to the WRC sooner but he thought it would be resolved. He had a conversation with the respondent at Christmas 2022 but nothing came of it. The claimant said that his colleague Mr.S was entirely dependant on his salary , that he was from Brazil and that he felt he had to step in and pay  him. The claimant asserted that the respondent assured him that he would repay this payment to the claimant. The  claimant said he was never told not to pay Mr.S and submitted that there were witnesses who would support his version of events.

The respondent’s representative submitted as follows :

 1. Zenoz Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) is a manufacturer producing rapid prototyping to industry specification and delivering close tolerance volume production. They are situated at Northwest Business & Technology Park, Castlecara Rd, Keenaghan, Carrick-On-Shannon, Co. Leitrim, N41 W720.

2. Mr Collins (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) was employed by the respondent up until the 16th of December when he resigned his position alleging non-payment of wages.

3. The complainant brings one claim before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) alleging the  respondent failed to discharge the wages owed to the complainant over the course of the employment.

 4. The respondent strongly denies this claim.

 Background 

5.The complainant was employed as head of manufacturing for the duration of the employment.

 6. Whilst employed the respondent found difficulty in discharging wages due to other staff members failing in their duties to the respondent and causing the respondent a loss.

7. Whilst the respondent acknowledges that the complainant had wages outstanding to him, these where ultimately discharged prior to the complainant making this claim.

8. The respondent submits documentary evidence in relation to the full discharge of wages to the complainant.

9. The respondent was receiving a grant in respect of the complainants pay and his pay would be discharged at different intervals.

10. As such, whilst this led to a delay in discharging the wages due to the complainant, the complainant was at no loss due to this arrangement.

 3 Legal Submission

11. The respondent refers to Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015  with respect to time limits and enclosed extracts from the Act.

12. The complainant lodged their claim on the 16th of August 2023.

13. Section 41(6) provides the following; (6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

 14. As such the date in which the complainant complaint refers is the 16th of July 2022, that being the date of contravention as per section 41 subs(6).

 15. The respondent submits a schedule of payments to the complainant from the 16th of July until the 23rd of January 2023.

16. This shows the amounts paid to the complainant from the date of contravention to the 23rd of January 2023, are sufficient to cover the wages due to the complainant.

17. The complainant refers that he paid Mr. S’s  wages. The respondent is not liable for private arrangements between other parties.

18. The claimant further refers that he paid two deliveries from DHL.

19. The respondent respectfully submits that neither matter falls under the terms wages therefore the commission have no jurisdiction to hear that part of the complainant’s complaint.

 Conclusion

 20. Adjudication Officer, the respondent submits that the compliant had received his pay covering the period from the date of contravention to the date in which the complainant was lodged.

21. The complainant has received both cash and electronic transfer payments during the employment.

 22. The respondent has submitted evidence within this submission that shows payments to the complainant and therefore shows no failure to discharge wages.

23. The respondent asks that you find the claim not well founded and dismiss same.

24. The respondent reserves the right to make further written submissions at the hearing of this claim.

It was submitted that the claimant could have made his complaint in July 2022 – that there was nothing to stop him doing so .The respondent submitted that the payment made by the complainant to another employee did not come within the definition of wages under the Act and that payments for shipment services did not amount to wages.

The respondent’s representative said that the matter of notice did not arise as the claimant had walked away from his employment without notice. It was advanced that monies had been fully discharged and that the definition of wages under the Act did not include expenses.

In his direct evidence the respondent insisted that there was no money owing to the claimant and all monies due had been paid. He said the claimant was aware that the company was reliant on grant aid to pay wages and denied that he had committed to  meeting  the cost of paying Mr. S  at a later date. The respondent submitted that  the complainant was well aware of the company finances as he made the grant applications. It was submitted that no evidence had been presented of the claimant paying Mr.S the full amount of €875.The respondent submitted that he told the claimant not to pay Mr.S.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearings and the submissions presented by the parties.The claimant’s complaint was received by the WRC on the 16th.January 2023 .Accordingly , the cognisable period for consideration of this complaint was the 17th.July 2022- 16th.January 2023.The matter of notice was not raised in the claimant’s complaint to the WRC and while it was referenced in correspondence to the WRC in April 2003 , it falls outside of the cognisable period and consequently I have no  jurisdiction with respect to this element of the complaint.

I accept the contention of the respondent’s representative that the payment to the claimant’s colleague Mr.S and the payment for courier services do not fall within the definition of wages under the Act.

The claimant’s  final submission to the WRC – which contained a table of the  incremental  and aggregated  shortfall in wages  in the 12 months prior to lodgement of his complaint –  includes  the cognisable period and consequently I am satisfied that the complaint was in time. The complaint identified the final monies owed after the payment in January 20.01.2023 of €6,658.37 as €1,881.89.I found the evidence of the complainant to be convincing and on that basis and in light of  the sporadic nature of payments over the year Jan.2022 -Dec 2022 , I found his version of events to be more credible that that of the respondent. The respondent acknowledged that underpayments did occur but attributed same to the grant  payments arrangements. This does not excuse the delayed payment over a 4 month period from August to October 2022 and  I do not accept the respondent’s contention that the claimant was not at a loss as a result of sporadic and late payments .In all of the circumstances I am satisfied that there was a shortfall in wages amounting to €1881.89 and that the  respondent was in breach of the Act .

I require the respondent to pay the claimant the final shortfall in wages amounting to €1,881.89