Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Veaceslav Gafton

Rice Transport & Commercial Repairs Limited

Representatives

  Self - represented

 Self - represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00057494-001

03/07/2023

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

CA-00057494-002

03/07/2023

The complainant states that he was employed with the respondent from 13 March 2023 until 7 June 2023 when his employment was terminated. The complainant states that when he commenced work, it was agreed that he would be paid €660 gross per week.

The complainant states that his revenue account is showing 12 working weeks paid but in fact it should be 13 weeks. The complainant states that the respondent did not pay him for his first working week ending on 17 March. He states that he only received a few payslips during the 3 months that he worked with the respondent. The complainant states that his employment was terminated as he was not prepared to work the extra hours requested by the respondent in which he was not getting paid for same.

The complainant states that he is entitled to be paid for the first week he worked for the company. The complainant further alleges that he is entitled to be paid for a training day which he undertook on 10 March 2023. He further states that he worked an extra 20 hours for an extra job he did in respect of runs to Dundalk on 20, 21, 22 and 23 May 2023 and was not paid in respect of same. The complainant states that on another occasion on 18 May, he spent five hours in the garage waiting for the truck to be repaired but received no pay for the extra hours worked.

The complainant states that his last week’s gross pay should be €396 in respect of 3 days that he worked but he was only paid €342, a shortfall of €54.

The complainant states that he is also entitled to be paid for annual leave accruing during his 13 weeks of employment with the respondent.

The respondent states that when the company hired the complainant, his wages were agreed by both parties. The respondent submits that it paid the complainant €550 cash for the first week and that this was done in order to facilitate the complainant to get to and from work on his first week.

The respondent states that there was no arrangement that the complainant be paid for accompanying another driver on a run on 10 March 2023.

The respondent denies that the complainant undertook 20 hours extra; it states that each driver has a driver’s card and when it is inserted into the TACO system, it does not allow the driver do extra as it is illegal to work more than 10 hours in the day.

In relation to the complainant’s statement that on one occasion he spent five hours waiting for the truck and trailer to be repaired, the respondent refutes this assertion and states that the repairs were carried out in a timely fashion and the truck was back on the road without delay.   

Payment of Wages Act

The evidence before me was that the complainant’s normal hours of work were 40 hours per week and he was paid €16.50 gross per hour.

Having carefully examined the evidence adduced and based on the documentation submitted by the complainant, I find that the complainant has established breaches by the respondent in respect of the Payment of Wages Act.

I found the complainant to be a credible witness and he endeavoured to produce relevant documentation he had at his disposal in order to substantiate his claims. On the contrary, I find that the respondent produced little in the way of records/ documentation to demonstrate compliance with the legislation.   

I find that the respondent is in breach of the Act in respect of the non payment to the complainant for his first week’s wages in the amount of €660 gross pay. While the respondent states that he gave the complainant €550 cash in hand, there was no documentary evidence or record to support same. I prefer the evidence given by the complainant in this instance as he was consistent in his testimony on this matter.

I find that the complainant is entitled to be paid in respect of the training day he undertook on Friday 10 March 2023.   

Based on the documentary evidence, I find that the complainant is entitled to be paid in respect of the 5 hours extra that he worked on 18 May 2023 and the 20 hours extra he undertook in the four day period from 20 – 23 May 2023. 

I find that the complainant has established, in respect of his last week’s gross pay, that he should have received €396 in respect of 3 days that he worked but was only paid €342, a shortfall of €54. The respondent is required to pay the complainant the shortfall in the amount of €54.

Organisation of Working Time Act

The complainant stated that he did not receive his entitlement to annual leave. I note that the complainant was employed from 13 March 2023 until 7 June 2023. Based on the evidence heard, I find that the complainant’s claim is well founded. The respondent is required to pay the complainant 5 days in respect of his annual leave entitlement.

Payment of Wages Act, Organisation of Working Time Act