ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044220
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | A Financial Company |
Representatives | Self- Represented | Did not appear /attend |
Complaint:
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-00055215-001 | 21/02/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991following 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 normally be in Public, 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 present. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties.
The issue of anonymisation in the published finding of the WRC was considered but not deemed necessary.
Background:
The Complainant was an Employee of the Respondent Company. The employment began on the 1st June 2022 and ended on the 31st October 2022. The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been €500 per month. Hours were variable as required. This case is one of a number of related, almost identical cases, with various Employers engaged in the financial business area involved. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave an Oral Testimony supported by written materials. When the employment ended the Complainant had not received 2 months’ pay (€1,000) and was owed Statutory Notice Pay of one week’s pay. He gave evidence under sworn oath /affirmation and provided documentary (Revenue Records) backup to support his employment status. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing and no evidence was given. From an email received in the WRC on the day before the Hearing (related to an allied case) I was satisfied that the Respondent was aware of the date time and place of the Hearing. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
In the complete absence of any Respondent evidence or Testimony the balance of probability rests with the Complainant. He gave clear professional evidence. On questioning from the Adjudicator, the Complainant produced Revenue records to establish that he had been an employee of the Respondent Company in this case. On the balance of Probability and the uncontested Sworn Evidence of the Complainant an award has to be made in his favour. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
CA-00055215-001
An award of €1,000 being unpaid Wages and € 115 being unpaid Notice is made in the Complainant’s favour.
Dated: 8th of February 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Minimum Notice, Un Paid wages |