ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044227

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	David Hoare	Chapter 8 Traffic Management Limited

	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-00055092-001	14/02/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/05/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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.

Specifically, I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence in relation to his complaint. Although I am satisfied that the Respondent was properly notified of the hearing, they chose not to attend on the day.

Background:

The Complainant stated that his employment as an Operator with the Respondent began on 28 September 2022 and ended on 18 November 2022. He alleged that he was underpaid in the amount of €1,373.39 by the Respondent.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant stated that he was underpaid by the Respondent in the amount of €1,373.39.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend on the day of the hearing to give evidence.

Findings and Conclusions:

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”) defines wages as:

“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,”

In Marek Balans -v- Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 approving Dunnes Stores (Cornels court) Limited -v- Lacey [2007] 1 1.R. 478, it was stated a decision-maker must firstly determine what wages are properly payable under the employment contract before determining whether there has been a deduction under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. While each case will turn on its own particular facts, it is necessary to ascertain, in the instant case, (1) whether the pay constituted a term of the Complainant’s contract and (2) if has there been a contravention of Section 5 of the Act.

Given the uncontradicted evidence of the Complainant, I am satisfied that he was not paid in the amount of €1,373.39 that he was owed in wages by the Respondent.

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.

I find that this complaint is well founded for the reasons set out above and direct that the Respondent pays a net amount of €1,373.39 to the Complainant.

Dated: 8th July 2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill

Key Words: