ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00051968
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Emina Majsek | Beauty Xpress |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives | Did not attend | Emma Gammage |
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-00063743-001 | 27/05/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/12/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
The hearing was scheduled for 04/12/2024. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant.
I am satisfied that the complainant was issued with a letter by e mail on 08/10/2024 advising her of the date, time and venue of the hearing. The e-mail was the sent to the one provided by the complainant and which she used for all correspondence with the WRC.
In order to exercise a significant amount of caution I allowed a period of time to elapse before bringing the hearing to a close. There was no further communication received from or on behalf of the complainant to indicate why she did not attend. The complainant was advised of the WRC postponement process but she did not make any such application.
The respondent attended the hearing.
Background:
The respondent operates a number of beauty salons across the country. The complainant was employed as a nail technician. The complainant submitted in her complaint form that she did not receive her full payment. The respondent submitted that there was a delay in payment as the complainant did not provide an IBAN number as she wished her payment to be sent to a Revolute account and as the business did not operate a Revolute account there was a difficulty in processing her payment until she opened a bank account. The respondent submitted details of all payments made once this matter was rectified and the complainant was paid in full and there are no further payments due. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant worked for the respondent for a period of 17 days. She submits that she was not paid properly but did not provide any specific details. The complainant did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the hearing. She was prepared to give evidence in defence of the complaint on behalf of the respondent and in accordance with their written submissions and accompanying documentation submitted on its behalf. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing to pursue the complaint and/or give evidence in relation to this complaint I conclude that the complaint is not well founded. |
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.
I am satisfied that the complainant was properly notified of the hearing arrangements. I find that her non-attendance at the hearing, without any notification, to pursue this complaint to be unreasonable. In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the complainant seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 I find this complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 12th of December 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
No attendance. |