ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044257
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Peter Lawrence | Brian Keenan Decorators Ltd |
Representatives | Self-represented | Did not attend. |
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-00055202-001 | 20/02/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00055202-002 | 20/02/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00055202-004 | 20/02/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/10/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
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.
I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021. The parties proceeded in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence may be required.
I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard, to present evidence relevant to the complaints and to cross examine witnesses.
The complainant gave evidence under affirmation.
The respondent did not attend.
Background:
The complainant submitted three complaints to the WRC on 20th February 2023: two complaints under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, concerning the non- payment of salary, non- payment of overtime monies and non- payment of holiday entitlements, and a further complaint under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. The complainant was employed as a painter decorator with the respondent from 28/1/2016 until he was placed on temporary lay-off on 4th November 2022. The complainant’s employment ended permanently on 30th January 2023. His gross weekly wage was €750.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00055202-001. Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The complainant states that the respondent made an unlawful deduction of €2250 on the 4/11/2022 when he failed to pay him his wages for the previous three weeks. The cognizable period of the complaint is the six-month period immediately before the complaint was lodged (20 August 2022 – 19 February 2023). The complainant was placed on temporary layoff on 4/11/2022. The second element of this complaint is the unlawful deduction of €2550 on the 4/11/2022, He was deducted €150 for overtime worked on Saturdays at the end of 2021 and early 2022. He continually asked for payment of same, was assured that it would be paid, but the payments never materialised.
CA-00055202-002. Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The respondent failed to pay him for the three public holidays which fell between Christmas 2022 and 1/1/23. the respondent failed to pay him for four days leave due to him over the Christmas 2022 period. His employment terminated on 30 January 2023.
CA-00055202-004. Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. The respondent failed to pay him his statutory notice of four weeks. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00055202-001. Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the respondent received notice of the time and day of the hearing. CA-00055202-002. Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the respondent received notice of the time and day of the hearing. CA-00055202-004. Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 The respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the respondent received notice of the time and day of the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00055202-001. Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. On the basis of the uncontested and credible evidence given under affirmation, I find that the complaint was deducted €2250 on 4/11/22 which represents three weeks wages, two weeks of which were in respect of weeks worked and one of which was in respect of annual leave for which he was unpaid. The second element concerns overtime. He was deducted €150 for overtime worked on Saturdays at the end of 2021 and early 2022. This is outside of the cognisable period. I do not uphold this element of this complaint. CA-00055202-002. Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. On the basis of the uncontested evidence, I find that the complainant was deducted €450 in respect of the three public holidays (25, 26 December 2022 and 1 January 2023). In addition . I find that the complainant was deducted four days’ pay in lieu of untaken leave in December 2023. This sum amounts to €600. The total amount to be paid to the complainant is €1050.
CA-00055202-004. Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. On the basis of the uncontested and credible evidence given under affirmation, I find that the complaint is entitled to be paid the sum of €3000 which represents his statutory entitlement to four weeks’ notice pay. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00055202-001. Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. I find the complaint to be well founded. I decide that the respondent is to pay the complainant the sum €2250 , subject to all lawful deductions. CA-00055202-002. Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. I find this complaint to be well founded. I decide that the respondent is to pay the complainant the sum of €1050, subject to all lawful deductions. CA-00055202-004. Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. I find this complaint to be well founded. I decide that the respondent is to pay the complainant the sum of €3000, subject to al lawful deductions. |
Dated: 21st of February 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Unlawful deductions. |