ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047463
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Madhushree Jayanna | Layer Digital Solutions Limited T/A Ubanquity Systems Limited |
Representatives | Self-representation | nonattendance |
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-00058518-001 | 27/08/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/02/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following 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.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant gave her evidence under oath.
The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter. The hearing letter was sent to the most recent address as per the Companies Registration Office website which indicated that the company is trading as normal (as at the date of the hearing). Accordingly, I am satisfied that the respondent was provided with the requisite notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded after a short pause of 15 minutes to enable the respondent to make contact with the WRC. They did not do so. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant worked for the respondent as a QA Senior Manual Engineer from November 2022. She stated that he was paid her salary until March 2023 and provided payslips in support of this contention. Her monthly salary amounted to €5000. The complainant stated that she was not paid for the months of April or May and did not receive payment in lieu of notice, nor the holiday pay to which she was entitled. The complainant made reference to media reports regarding the respondent and other employees. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Although the complainant made reference to media reports regarding the respondent and other employees, it was indicated to her that this complaint would be decided upon the evidence presented before and during the hearing and that a decision would be made on that basis. Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 states that "wages", in relation to an employee, means 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, and (b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice: The complainant submitted wage slips and bank statements to support her contentions and a copy of the termination notice. I am satisfied as to the veracity of the employment relationship. The complainant noted that although she was not paid her wages for April 2023 the respondent paid over her tax to the Revenue Commissioners in respect of that month’s employment. The complainant was a credible witness, providing additional detail as required by the Adjudicator and supporting her contentions with documentation where possible. She submitted that she was left short two months’ salary and one months’ notice amounting to €15,000 plus holiday pay of €3,125. I am satisfied that the complainant has established her claim to three months’ salary plus holiday pay under the Payment of Wages Act. I find that the respondent deducted these amounts unlawfully and that she is entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to three months’ salary plus holiday pay, i.e., €18,125 less any lawful deductions. I consider this to be reasonable in the circumstances. |
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.
Having regard to all the written and oral evidence in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is well founded, and I direct the respondent pay the complainant compensation of €18,125 less any lawful deductions. |
Dated: 19th February 2024.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Payment of Wages – employment established – unlawful deduction established - compensation award equivalent to the amount deducted |