ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048771
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Rumen Stankov | Jayden & Preston Limited |
Representatives | Sean McElwain NCU CIS | Peter Dunlea Peninsula Business Services Limited |
Complaints:
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-00059887-001 | 09/11/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 | CA-00059887-002 | 09/11/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 | CA-00059887-003 | 09/11/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/11/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
This matter was heard by way of a remote hearing on the 14th November 2024 pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The parties are named in the heading of the decision. For ease of reference, for the remainder of the
document I will refer Rumen Stankov as “the Complainant” and Jayden & Preston Limited as “the Respondent”.
At the adjudication hearing I advised that in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and that the Decision would not be anonymised unless there were special circumstances for doing otherwise. There was no application to have the matter heard in private or to have the Decision anonymised.
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under Statute.
The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation from both parties prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented by both parties have been taken into consideration.
Background:
The Complainant referred three complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the WRC”) on the 9th November 2023. At the commencement of the hearing the Complainant withdrew his complaints under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973. The Complainant pursued his complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 claiming that he was owed pay for days worked by him and holiday pay not paid to him at the date of termination of his employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a Driver on the 10th May 2023 and his employment ended on the 24th September 2023. He claimed that he was owed outstanding pay of €420.00 gross and holiday pay of €355.00 gross. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent accepted that the Complainant was owed outstanding pay of €420.00 gross and holiday pay of €355.00 gross. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted by the parties and the oral submissions adduced at the hearings summarised above. CA-00059887-001 - Payment of Wages Act 1991 The Payment of Wages Act 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1991 Act”) provides the following definition of “wages” at section 1: "wages", in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including— (a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and (b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice: The above definition includes pay and holiday pay. Sections 5(1) and 5(6) of the 1991 Act provides: 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. (2) … (3) … (4) … (5) … (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. It is apparent from the foregoing sections that where wages are properly payable the failure of an employer to pay such wages is an unlawful deduction. I note that it was not disputed by the Respondent that the total sum of €775.00 gross, comprising €420.00 gross in respect of pay and €355.00 gross in respect of holiday pay, was properly payable to the Complainant and was unlawfully deducted from the Complainant’s wages. I therefore find that the complaint is well founded.
CA-00059887-002 – Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing.
CA-00059887-003 – Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00059887-001 - Payment of Wages Act 1991 I decide that this complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €420.00 gross in respect of his pay and €355.00 gross in respect of holiday pay not paid to him at the date of termination, a total of €775.00 gross less any lawful deductions. CA-00059887-002 – Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing.
CA-00059887-003 – Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing.
|
Dated: 09th December 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
Key Words:
|