ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046526
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Michael Donnelly | Rocket Science Media 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 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00057372-001 | 27/06/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00057372-003 | 27/06/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00057372-004 | 27/06/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses presents. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing on 3 November 2023, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 23 January 2023. His employment ended on 30 May 2023. He worked 40 hours per week and his gross pay was €356.73 per week. A complaint form was received from the Complainant by the WRC on 27 June 2023. A remote hearing of the case took place on 3 November 2023. |
CA – 00057372-001 Complaint under the section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In his complaint from the Complainant submits that prior to accepting the position with the Respondent he made it clear that he did not drive a car. The Respondent confirmed that this would not be a problem as either he, the Respondent, or some colleague, would collect the Complainant on the way to shoots and drop him home when the work was completed. The Complainant also submits that he was promised €350 per week regardless of how the business was doing. The Complainant submits that all was well until around April when his calls to the office about work went unanswered.; this could continue for weeks. When he did get through, he checked with the Respondent about his employment status and he was told he was still an employee, however he was not being paid. On 30 May 2023, the Complainant received a phone call from the Respondent telling him that he was closing the business and was letting the Complainant go. The Respondent did agree to pay the Complainant the money due to him in wages. Since the call of 30 May 2023, the Complainant submits that he received one payment of €350 from the Respondent. The Complainant submits he is owed four weeks’ wages of €350 per week, totalling €1,400. The complainant submits he is also owed a payment of one weeks’ wages in lieu of notice. The Complainant gave evidence on Affirmation at the hearing. He stated that he left a better paying job to take up employment with the Respondent on condition he got paid €350 per week no matter what amount of work was being done. On 30 May 2023, the Complainant stated that he contacted the Respondent. Th e Respondent replied telling the Complainant, that the business was closing. Since his employment ended the Complainant has been paid some of the money was owed. He believes he is now owed €550.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Mr Neil Ikbal gave evidence on Affirmation at the hearing. He stated the arrangement with the Complainant had been very loose. He stated that he had agreed with the Complainant to pay him €350 per week. However, the Complainant just stopped turning up for work and was not doing company work from home, yet he still expected to be paid. Mr Ikbal accepted responsibility for the way the situation ended. |
Findings and Conclusions:
From the evidence adduced it is clear an agreement had been reached between the parties that the Complainant would be paid €350 per week. This agreement was reneged upon by the Respondent, albeit with reason when the workflow dried up. Notwithstanding the circumstances, the agreement was breached and the Complainant is owed his wages. Thankfully most of the money owed has been paid to the Complainant since the termination of the employment relationship. I find the Complainant is owed the outstanding €550. |
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.
The complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €550. |
CA – 00057372-003 Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In his complaint form, the Complainant submits that he did not receive his statutory minimum period of notice on the termination of his employment or payment in lieu thereof. In evidence the Complainant stated that he had tried to get work from the Respondent but to no avail. He says his employment ended on 30 May 2023, without notice, when the Respondent told him that the business was closing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Mr Ikbal stated that the Complainant had simply stopped turning up for work, but accepted that he had not stopped this from happening. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having the considered the evidence adduced I find the Complainant was give notice nor was he paid in lieu of notice. As per his service he is statutorily entitled to one weeks’ notice of €350. |
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.
I find the Act was contravened and I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €350. |
CA – 00057372-004 Complaint under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In his complaint form, the Complainant submits that he did not receive a statement in writing of his terms of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
In evidence the Respondent accepted that there had never been a contract of employment or anything in writing about the Complainant’s Terms & Conditions of Employment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
It is clear from the evidence that the Complainant was never provided with anything approaching a written contract of employment as required. All employers must take their responsibilities seriously; this did not happen in this case and I find in the Complainant’s favour. |
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.
The complaint is well founded and I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €350. |
Dated: 05/01/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Pay, contract, notice. |