Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mykola  Hladkyi

Inkmonkeys Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Self-Represented

No Appearance

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-00064630-001

07/07/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00064630-002

07/07/2024

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 6th November 2023. At all relevant times the Complainant role was described as that of “General Operative”. The Complainant received an average weekly wage of €469.90. The Complainant’s employment was terminated by the Respondent on 9th February 2024.

On 7th July 2024, the Complainant referred the present set of complaints to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that the Respondent withheld the sum of €1,643.56 from his wages. In addition to the foregoing, the Complainant submitted that the Respondent had failed to pay his outstanding annual leave on the termination of his employment. No submission seeking to rebut these allegations was received from the Respondent.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 4th October 2024. There was no appearance by, or on behalf of, the Respondent at the hearing as scheduled.

The Complainant issued a submission in advance of the hearing and gave evidence in support of his complaint during the hearing. Said evidence was given under oath or affirmation with the assistance of an interpreter.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

In evidence the Complainant submitted that towards the end of his employment, his employer routinely failed to properly discharge his wages. In this regard, the Complainant stated that he would receive a payslip for the correct amount of wages, but that the same would not be transferred into his account thereafter.  At the end of his employment, the Complainant submitted that he was owed the sum of €1,643.56 in outstanding wages.

Following the termination of his employment, the Complainant was in regular contact with the Respondent regarding these outstanding wages. In several text messages, opened in evidence, it is apparent that the Respondent acknowledged the wages outstanding and set out his intention to discharge the same. In advance of the hearing the Respondent paid the Complainant the sum of €1,150.00, however the remaining wages of €493.56 remained outstanding by the date of the hearing.

In addition to the foregoing, the Complainant submitted that his employer failed to discharge his outstanding annual leave on the termination of his employment. In this respect, the Complainant opened several payslips stating that the same made no provision for any payment of annual leave.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing as scheduled. Having reviewed the file it is apparent that the Respondent was on notice of the time, date and venue of the hearing. In addition to the foregoing, it is noted that no application to adjourn the hearing was made in advance of the same and no explanation for the Respondent non-attendance was received thereafter. In such circumstances the matter proceeded in the absence of the Respondent, and the decision below will be based on the evidence of the Complainant only.

In the present case, the Complainant had submitted that the Respondent routinely and persistently failed to pay his wages as due. In this regard, the Complainant stated that his payslip would demonstrate the correct payment, but the wages in question would not be transferred to his account thereafter.  In evidence, the Complainant stated that the Respondent acknowledged this non-payment of wages, and that he discharged a portion of the same in advance of the hearing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, he submitted that the sum of €493.56 remained outstanding on the date of the hearing.

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, defines “wages” as “any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including…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”.

In the matter of Marek Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd [2019 No. 83 MCA], McGrath J stated that when considering complaints under the present Act,

“Central to the Court’s analysis must be the concepts of wages properly payable and the circumstances in which there is a deficiency in respect of those such payments”.

In this respect, the Complainant’s case is clear. He stated that the wages were properly payable and that the Respondent failed to pay the same. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that this complaint is well-founded.

Regarding the second allegation, the Complainant submitted that the Respondent failed to discharge his outstanding annual leave entitlement on the termination of his employment. Again having regard to the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, and the relevant payslips in this regard, I find that this complaint is well founded.

CA-00064630-001 Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act

I find that the complaint is well-founded and award the Complainant the sum of €493.56 in compensation. This payment should be subject to normal deductions as income.

CA-00064630-002 Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act

I find that the complaint is well-founded. Having regard to the totality of evidence provided by the Complainant, I award him the sum of €488.70 in respect of his outstanding annual leave entitlement, and further €500 in compensation.

Wages, Annual Leave, Entitlement