Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jack  Sanfey

Oxfam Ireland

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Mr. D. Wilkinson BL instructed by  ARAG Legal Protection Limited

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-00055296-001

27/02/2023

The Complainant was employed as a Sales Assistant and alleged he was not properly paid at the Manager rate of 14.75 Euros for 360 hours while working for the Respondent in an Acting Up capacity for an additional 20 hours per week as Manager and he was not properly paid for these hours.

The Complainant initially submitted the following complaint on February 27th 2023 “Oxfam condones their District Retail Managers lying to their staff about what pay rates they'll receive for performing different roles. I was not paid the hourly rate of €14.75 quoted by senior management for over 2 months of full time work as a manager (360 hours). My employee rights have been violated, of which I have proof, and will proceed via the courts if all monies due to me are not paid”.

The Complainant, when requested by the Adjudicator, initially set out his complaint that he should have been paid 8140.80 Euros and was paid a total of 6,872.49 Euros, a difference of 1268.31 Euros and he sought compensation of 1,600 Euros to settle his complaint.

At the request of the Adjudicator the Complainant was asked subsequent to the first Hearing to set out the detail of his complaint as insufficient detail of the complaint had been supplied. He provided hours worked and the rates of pay due but no further clarity on the complaint. In subsequent correspondence from the Adjudicator, the Complainant specified his complaint that he should have received 8140.80 Euros and was paid 8081. 87 Euros. This is a difference of 58.93 Euros. However, the Complainant stated he worked hours beyond 40 some weeks and should be paid for these hours.

The Complainant left his employment with the Respondent on 25 February 2023.  The Complainant submitted a complaint on 27 February 2023 bearing reference CA – 00055296- 001 – Payment of Wages Act 1991.  The Complainant particularised the nature of his complainant that he was not paid at the rate of pay of €14.75 per hour for a total of 360 hours worked on or after 26th December 2022 until he left employment with the Respondent.   

It was submitted that on or about 24 August 2023 the Complainant did submit further documents to the WRC but that on 28 August 2023 the WRC wrote to the Complainant asking him to specify what his complaint was.   

It was submitted that on or about 11 September 2023 the Complainant submitted a document claiming he is owed at least €1268.31 plus any additional holiday pay discrepancy, which claim(s) were denied.  Furthermore, he complained that he has been underpaid for all the hours he worked since his employment began, which was denied.  It was submitted that if the Complainant had a complaint about his pay in the period on or prior 25 December 2022, which was denied, he had six months from the relevant date to do so.  For instance, if a complaint related to 24 December 2022 such complaint should have submitted by 23 June 2023.         

It was submitted that a new complaint was submitted on 11 September 2023 relating to the period 27 October to 25 December 2022, which was denied.  It was submitted that as it was submitted on 11 September 2023 it is outside the period of 6 months to make a complaint for the period 27 October to 25 December 2022.  It was submitted that the Complainant needed to show he has “reasonable cause” as per s41(8) Workplace Relations Act for the submitting his complaint outside the 6 month period to do so.  

It was submitted that a summary sheet supplied by the Respondent set out the details of the payments made to the Complainant and showed the complaint to be substantially unfounded.  The Respondent also supplied copies of payslips, bank transfers and the first page of the contract of employment.   

The Complainant submitted a complaint relating to the period of his employment from late October 2022 to February 2023. The detail of the complaint was not clear from the initial complaint form and was also not made clear at the initial Hearing into the complaint. At the request of the Adjudicator and to ensure the Respondent had a specific complaint to reply to the Complainant was asked to detail his complaint. This was done by the Complainant in between the first and second Hearings, albeit not fully satisfactory with sufficient detail. This detail was supplied to the Respondent and the Respondent submitted its reply to the detail provided and argued that part of the complaint was a new complaint and therefore statute barred as it had not been submitted within six months. In the circumstances of this particular complaint I do not consider the detail provided at the Adjudicators request to be a new complaint but instead providing more details so the initial complaint could be understood more by all concerned.  I therefore do not deem the information provided subsequent to six months of the date of the alleged breach of the Act to be out of time.

On the substantial issue the Complainant sought payment for some hours worked over 40 per week. The contract of employment did not allow for this and the Complainant set his own roster and was clearly told, in a transcript of a telephone conversation he supplied with his Supervisor when he was offered the additional acting up post, he was to work only 40 hours per week.

The Complainants information was not easily understood as to what his complaint was based on. What was subsequently clear is he stated he should have received 8140.80 Euros total and was paid 8081.87 Euros, a difference of 58.93 Euros. The Respondent submitted a detailed worksheet and payslips showing the Complainant was due 8476.04 Euros, a difference of 394.17 Euros to the claim of 8081.87 Euros. However, when an overpayment of 277 Euros was taken into account the amount due was 117.17 Euros, an amount greater than what the Complainant stated he was underpaid by (58.93 Euros). I find that the Complainant has established his complaint to be well founded but only to the amount which the Respondents detailed analysis shows he is owed of 117.17 Euros.

I find the complaint well founded and award the Complainant 117.17 Euros.

Payment of wages