ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046666
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Yahia Madani | Eem Building Solutions Ltd |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00057051-001 | 09/06/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00057051-002 | 09/06/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/10/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
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.
The Complainant attended the hearing on his own. Although I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the time and date of the hearing, there was no appearance by them on the day
Background:
The Complainant began working with the Respondent on 10 May 2023 and ended his employment three days later on 12 May 2023. He stated that he was not paid for the three days that he worked and also alleged that he did not receive a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant began his employment on 10 May 2023. He stated that the Respondent refused to register his employment with the Revenue Commissioners despite having been prompted to do so by him. Given their failure to do so, he ended his employment after three days, on 12 May 2023. He stated that he was not paid for the three days that he worked despite numerous promises by the Respondent that he would receive the payment. The Complainant also alleged that he did not receive a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing to give evidence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00057051-001: The Law Terms of Employment (Information) Acts. (1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1), an employer shall, not later than 5 days after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment, that is to say: (a) the full names of the employer and the employee; (b) the address of the employer in the State or, where appropriate, the address of the principal place of the relevant business of the employer in the State or the registered office (within the meaning of the Companies Act 2014); (c) in the case of a temporary contract of employment, the expected duration thereof or, if the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the date on which the contract expires; (d) the remuneration, including the initial basic amount, any other component elements, if applicable, indicated separately, the frequency and method of payment of the remuneration to which the employee is entitled and the pay reference period for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000; (e) the number of hours which the employer reasonably expects the employee to work— (i) per normal working day, and (ii) per normal working Findings Given that the Complainant left his employment after only three days and that the Act, as set out above, provides for a period of 5 days after the employment commences for the Respondent to furnish a statement in writing containing the particulars outlined above, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00057051-002: Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”) defines wages as: “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,” In Marek Balans -v- Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 approving Dunnes Stores (Cornels court) Limited -v- Lacey [2007] 1 1.R. 478, it was stated a decision-maker must firstly determine what wages are properly payable under the employment contract before determining whether there has been a deduction under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. While each case will turn on its own particular facts, it is necessary to ascertain, in the instant case, (1) whether the pay constituted a term of the Complainant’s contract and (2) if has there been a contravention of Section 5 of the Act. Given the uncontradicted evidence of the Complainant, I am satisfied that he worked from 7 am to 3 30 pm from 10 May 2023 to 12 May 2023 inclusive and that he was not paid in respect of these hours. |
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-00057051-001: I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00057051-002: I find that this complaint is well founded for the reasons set out above. As the period worked in this period was 25.5 hours and given his pay rate of €20.47 per hour, I order the Respondent to make a payment to the Complainant of €521.98. |
Dated: 21st February, 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|