CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 39 OF THE ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997
This Order corrects the original Decision ADJ-00045535 issued on 26/01/2024and should be read in conjunction with that Decision. ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00045535
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Damien ODoherty | FM Salon Supplies Limited |
Representatives | The claimant represented himself | The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing |
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-00056363-001 | 27/04/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer OShea
Procedure
In accordance with Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The claimant commenced employment with the respondent company on the 15th.April 2001 – the claimant asserts he is currently on sick leave. In his compliant form the claimant submitted that the respondent is in breach of the Payment of Wages Act for failing to pay him €10,601.13 in outstanding wages that became due on the 2nd.January 2023.
The respondent was notified of the hearing on the 13th.October 2023 but did not attend. The respondent wrote to the WRC on the 8th.Aug 2023 attaching a letter which was issued to the claimant on the same date, advising him that he was suspended with immediate effect.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant set out a chronology of the payment arrangements with the respondent involving a weekly wage of €670.48 plus commission of 6% which was to be paid into a pension plan at the rate of €1,200 per month with the option of adding surplus to the pension pot yearly. From July 2022, the complainant submitted that it was agreed with the respondent that a new monthly payment of €1,850 would be set up to cover the commission earned over the €1,200. The complainant submitted that he discovered on the 1st.January 2023 that all payments into the fund had ceased without any engagement or consultation with him. The complainant submitted that he was assured by the respondent that the matter would be rectified but when no further payments were made by May 2023, the claimant referred his complaint under the Payment of Wages Act to the WRC. At this point Mr.X took over as Managing Director. A meeting ensued with the respondent in July 2023 at which there was agreement to restore payments and adopt new proposals going forward. The claimant detailed the revised arrangements for payment to the pension plan which was paid at the rate of €800 per month on the 1st.Aug 2023 and the 1st.Sept. 2023 – following which the payments ceased and were not restored. The claimant asserted that the total commission earned since September 2020 was €50727.74 – the complainant submitted the company paid €38360.00. He submitted there was a shortfall of €12,367.74. The complainant said he believed that both parties could come to some arrangement to pay the full amount with a time scale of 2 years to pay back what was due – he submitted that this explained the delay in making the complaint. While he had received verbal assurances about payment of arrears, he had nothing in writing. The complainant asserted that the company had worked out a deal with the other sales rep who had withdrawn his complaint. The claimant asserted that the manner in which he had been treated had a massive impact on his life and contributed to feelings of anxiety and other health challenges. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the absence of the respondent. The respondent was notified of the date and time of the hearing on the 13th.Oct. 2023. The claimant’s complaint was received by the WRC on the 27th.April 2023.The claimant when questioned at the hearing about the time frame for making the complaint replied that the complaint was not made earlier as he had believed the numerous assurances by the respondent – which were all verbal – that the dispute would be resolved. I found the claimant’s uncontested evidence in this regard to be convincing and consequently I deem the cognisable time frame for consideration of the complaint to be from the 28th.April 2022 to the 27th.April 2023.I am satisfied that deductions for pension contributions constitute deductions from wages. On the basis of the uncontested evidence of the claimant I have concluded that the nonpayment of the pension contributions set out above was effected without his consent. Accordingly, I am upholding the complaint. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
The claimant has estimated the deductions made during the cognisable period to be €6,560.78. I require the respondent to pay the claimant €6,560.78 compensation. |
Dated: 26-01-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Key Words:
|
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00045535
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Damien ODoherty | Fm Salon Supplies Jules Hair & Beauty Supplies |
Representatives | The claimant represented himself | The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing |
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-00056363-001 | 27/04/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer OShea
Procedure
In accordance with Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The claimant commenced employment with the respondent company on the 15th.April 2001 – the claimant asserts he is currently on sick leave. In his compliant form the claimant submitted that the respondent is in breach of the Payment of Wages Act for failing to pay him €10,601.13 in outstanding wages that became due on the 2nd.January 2023.
The respondent was notified of the hearing on the 13th.October 2023 but did not attend. The respondent wrote to the WRC on the 8th.Aug 2023 attaching a letter which was issued to the claimant on the same date, advising him that he was suspended with immediate effect.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant set out a chronology of the payment arrangements with the respondent involving a weekly wage of €670.48 plus commission of 6% which was to be paid into a pension plan at the rate of €1,200 per month with the option of adding surplus to the pension pot yearly. From July 2022, the complainant submitted that it was agreed with the respondent that a new monthly payment of €1,850 would be set up to cover the commission earned over the €1,200. The complainant submitted that he discovered on the 1st.January 2023 that all payments into the fund had ceased without any engagement or consultation with him. The complainant submitted that he was assured by the respondent that the matter would be rectified but when no further payments were made by May 2023, the claimant referred his complaint under the Payment of Wages Act to the WRC. At this point Mr.X took over as Managing Director. A meeting ensued with the respondent in July 2023 at which there was agreement to restore payments and adopt new proposals going forward. The claimant detailed the revised arrangements for payment to the pension plan which was paid at the rate of €800 per month on the 1st.Aug 2023 and the 1st.Sept. 2023 – following which the payments ceased and were not restored. The claimant asserted that the total commission earned since September 2020 was €50727.74 – the complainant submitted the company paid €38360.00. He submitted there was a shortfall of €12,367.74. The complainant said he believed that both parties could come to some arrangement to pay the full amount with a time scale of 2 years to pay back what was due – he submitted that this explained the delay in making the complaint. While he had received verbal assurances about payment of arrears, he had nothing in writing. The complainant asserted that the company had worked out a deal with the other sales rep who had withdrawn his complaint. The claimant asserted that the manner in which he had been treated had a massive impact on his life and contributed to feelings of anxiety and other health challenges. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the absence of the respondent. The respondent was notified of the date and time of the hearing on the 13th.Oct. 2023. The claimant’s complaint was received by the WRC on the 27th.April 2023.The claimant when questioned at the hearing about the time frame for making the complaint replied that the complaint was not made earlier as he had believed the numerous assurances by the respondent – which were all verbal – that the dispute would be resolved. I found the claimant’s uncontested evidence in this regard to be convincing and consequently I deem the cognisable time frame for consideration of the complaint to be from the 28th.April 2022 to the 27th.April 2023.I am satisfied that deductions for pension contributions constitute deductions from wages. On the basis of the uncontested evidence of the claimant I have concluded that the nonpayment of the pension contributions set out above was effected without his consent. Accordingly, I am upholding the complaint. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
The claimant has estimated the deductions made during the cognisable period to be €6,560.78. I require the respondent to pay the claimant €6,560.78 compensation. |
Dated: 26-01-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Key Words:
|