Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Vadim  Tudorache

P & L Carpentry Ltd

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00058387-001

20/08/2023

The complainant submits that from 26/06/2023 to 30/06/2023 he worked as a carpenter for PL Group, the respondent, on a site in Dublin 8 at Grand Canal Harbour assembling furniture in apartments. He says that the company representative was Mr. Andrei Moisei.

He has photographic evidence of the fact that he worked there.

There was an oral agreement that they would work for a week as a trial after he would decide whether to continue working or not and was told that he would be paid €20 per hour.

On Friday 30/06/2023 he terminated the employment and was owed €640 plus 20% tax which was to be transferred to his account. After a week of waiting the money was not transferred. He contacted. Andrei Moisei by phone and in writing and he told us that there was a delay of one week for technical reasons.

But the money had not been transferred even after two weeks of waiting and efforts to contact Mr. Moisie failed and he didnotanswereitherourcallsormessages.

The complainant gave evidence on the basis of affirmation.

He stated that the P & L group was his employer but did not have any documentary evidence to confirm this and he was not given a contract.

He also stated that he worked for Andre Moisie, who he described as ‘a representative’ of the respondent.

Mr. Paul Walsh gave evidence on affirmation on behalf of the company, which is a carpentry contractor, and which employs approximately 35 to 40 employees directly.

He confirmed that it had a contract to install over 500 kitchens on the site referred to by the complainant and stated that this contract was delivered by means of his own company’s direct employees, and also by using a range of sub-contractors, including Mr. Moisie’s enterprise, which was a registered sub-contractor.

He did not know the complainant who he stated had never been employed by him.

Andre Moisie gave evidence on affirmation. He confirmed that the complainant had been employed by him and not by the named respondent.

It is clear from the evidence that the complainant either misunderstood the nature of his employment relationship with the named respondent, or perhaps named him as the only option when he could not get a satisfactory response from his direct employer, who is the subject of aa separate complaint.

The direct evidence of the respondent and of the complainant’s actual employer Mr. Moisie was unambiguous and uncontradicted on that point and the complainant has named the wrong respondent.

I must decide this complaint on the basis of the evidence and submissions which have been heard over two hearings (the first of which was adjourned as an interpreter was not present.)

Accordingly, as the named respondent was not the complainant’s employer the complaint is not well founded.

For the reasons set out above Complaint CA-00058387-001 is not well founded.

Wrong employer named.