Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Bobson Benjamin  Kargbo

Larent Rouge Gorge Ltd

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

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-00062822-001

15/04/2024

The complainant submitted on his complaint form that he did not receive monies that he was owed.

The complainant gave evidence that he was employed as a chef and that he did not get paid on time.  He said that he had now received all the monies he was owed.  He said that he started work on 17/01/2024 and that payment for hours work was irregular and that he had to travel two hours to get to work and he was promised he would be paid but it caused him a lot of stress and he had to leave the job as he had bills to pay.  He was promised full time work but then it was apparent that he would not receive full time hours as he was working on average 27 hours per week and he asked the respondent to complete a form confirming that full time hours were not available but the respondent did not fill in this form and he lost out on benefits because of this.  During his time he did not receive a contract of employment.

There was no cross examination of the complainant’s evidence.

The respondent submitted that there was no monies owed.

Mr Clairon gave evidence that the complainant was not paid weekly on the first occasion and outlined that the complainant received money for hours worked on 31/01/2024, 07/02/2024, 28/03/2024, 15/04/2024 and these payments mostly comprised of bank transactions but cash was paid on the first occasion and that the complainant had also received his holiday pay.  He said that the complainant had not received a contract.  He said that the time-table of payments was varied but was never late.

There was no cross examination of his evidence.

On the complaint form the complainant had submitted that monies was owed but in evidence confirmed that all outstanding monies had now been paid and said that he lost out on social welfare owing to the respondent’s failure to complete a relevant form.  The respondent denied that he was late with payment but agreed the timetable of when pay was forthcoming varied.

The applicable law sets out under

Section 5 Regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers.

5.—(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.

(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,

then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

In Sullivan v Department of Education PW 2/1997 (reported at [1998] E.L.R. 217) the Employment Appeals Tribunal held that,

“if an employee does not receive what is properly payable to him or her from the outset then this can amount to a deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act”.

I note that all monies have now been paid and the monies the complainant claims he did not receive from social welfare are not monies properly payable from the respondent.  As there are no monies properly payable in the cognisable period the complaint does not succeed.

Taking into consideration the aforementioned evidence and submissions I find that there are no monies properly payable in the cognisable period and therefore, the complaint does not succeed.

Payment, irregular,