ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047585
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Stoycho Mihaylov | Ciaran Berry Kenbergal Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
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-00058608-001 | 31/08/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/12/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021, the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, that testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing on 12 December 2023, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant Commenced employment with the Respondent as a Head Chef on 1 August 2023. His employment ended on 13 August 2023. |
CA-00058608-001
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In his complaint from the Complainant submits that he worked for two weeks with the Respondent. He submits his rate of pay was €18 per hour. He got paid €600 cash for the first week. However, he was not paid for the second week when he worked 45 hours, and he submits he is owed €810 in pay. The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing. The Complainant stated that taking breaks into account he is owed €765 for the second week he worked for the Respondent. As matters progressed at the hearing, the Complainant accepted he had received a payment of €440 from the Respondent, after he had resigned his position, however he did not know at the time that this money had been paid to him by the Respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing. The Respondent denied the Complainant was on a rate of €18 per hour as he was on probation. He asserted that the Complainant was due a net payment of €1,040.18 for the two weeks he worked for the Respondent. The Respondent stated that he had paid the Complainant €600 in cash for his for week of employment and subsequently lodged €440.18 into the Complainant’s bank account covering his wages for the second week of his employment. The Respondent was adamant that he had paid the Complainant all he was owed in wages. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Subsequent to the hearing, the Respondent provided documentary evidence to show that €440.18 was paid to the Complainant in September 2023. Although the Complainant may not have been aware of it, the Respondent did pay the Complainant his wages for the second week of his employment and no unlawful deduction was made. I find therefore that the complaint cannot be upheld. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 11th April 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Wages, |