ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046878

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Zuzanna Kismann	Grzegorz Glapa

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties

Representatives

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-00057843-001	22/07/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/12/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

The Complainant has brought a complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 and where such a complaint is presented the Director General is empowered to refer that complaint forward for adjudication by an Adjudication Officer pursuant to Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. Following the said referral,it is incumbent on the assigned Adjudicator to make all relevant enquiries into the complaint. This will include hearing oral evidence, considering submissions made and receiving other relevant evidence.

In particular, the Complainant herein has referred the following complaint:

A complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a Complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.

By way of preliminary observation, I am satisfied a Contract of Employment existed between the parties such that a wage defined by the 1991 Act was payable to the Employee by the Employer in connection with the employment. I further find that the Complainant’s Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 27th of July 2023 was submitted within the time allowed. As an Adjudicator, I cannot hear or entertain any complaint referred to the WRC under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 if it has been presented after the expiration of a six-month period beginning on the date of the contravention (as set out in Section 41(6) of the Act).

Background:

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my functions and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

In response to the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021 ]IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice. In accordance with Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 and to avoid any issue arising concerning the veracity of evidence provided I have required any and all oral evidence to be provided on affirmation or oath as appropriate. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 22nd of July 2023.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was not represented, and she made her own case. At the outset, the Complainant was happy to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant additionally relied on the submission outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form in addition to the oral evidence.

The Complainant alleges that her Employer failed to pay her full wages over an extended period of time.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries of the Complainant so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 26th of October 2023 - and posted to Respondent’s home address as provided by the Complainant.

Findings and Conclusions:

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the Complainant herein. I am satisfied that the Complainant went to work directly for the named Respondent (and his wife) in and around October 2021. The Respondent and his wife were family friends who were opening a Bistro and looking for experienced wait staff.

The Complainant was happy in the job, and it suited her as she had just completed secondary school. Some eight months into the employment, the Complainant noticed that the Employer was missing the date for the payment of her wages. This started in the May of 2022. The payments became sporadic and unpredictable.

The Complainant continued working in the Bistro despite the erratic nature of payments being made, and this was because of the underlying friendship. She says she could see that the Bistro was struggling.

Although she says it was hard to do so, the Complainant opted to terminate the employment in and around February 2023 at which time she says was owed wages in the amount of €5,000.00.

The Complainant acknowledges that the Respondent has paid most of the wages which were then due an owing. In coming before the WRC, the Complainant has made the case that she is still owed the sum of €1,103.00.

I am satisfied that the Complainant has established that her Employer made unlawful deductions from the wages which were due and owing to her and that (as of the hearing of this matter) an outstanding sum remains unpaid.

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.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00057843-001 – The complaint herein is well founded and I direct that eh Employer pay to the Complainant the sum of€1,103.00.

Dated: 6th of February at 2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Key Words: