Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Conor  Saruwatari

Indeff Ltd.  

Representatives

Self-represented

No appearance

Act

Complaint

Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00059920-001

10/11/2023

The Complainant’s complaint relates to the late payment of his salary on several occasions, which he characterized as an ongoing problem, within the company, and which pertained to several employees, not just himself.

At the date of hearing, he had been paid in full, the salary due and owing. However, he highlighted the unreliability of receiving his salary when it was due to him, and the fact that he had to make multiple attempts to remedy the problem, that promises were made by the company which were not fulfilled, and the economic impact of the failure of the Respondent company to pay its employees on time and as agreed (i.e. the impact on his ability to discharge his bills including his rent), in his case.

The Respondent company did not attend the hearing.

When the Respondent did not attend, the Adjudication Officer requested the Case Officer contact it. The Case Officer rang but received no answer. The Adjudication Officer allowed a grace period of approximately fifteen (15) minutes, and then proceeded with the hearing, in the absence of the Respondent.

The Adjudication Officer explored the correct legal name of the Respondent company with the Complainant. A CRO search indicated that the correct legal name of the Respondent is ‘Indeff Ltd.’  On the evidence before her, the Adjudication Officer directed the name change to that of the correct legal Respondent.

The Complainant gave evidence on his own behalf. He outlined that he was still a current employee of the Respondent, that he experienced difficulty getting paid, on time, as his salary fell due and owing to him; that there were multiple instances over many months, whereby the Respondent company had been late in paying him (and others) and where there were various reasons given for that, by the CEO, and undertakings provided to correct the problem, which were then not fulfilled, and the uncertainty and inability to rely upon the Respondent to pay him his salary fully and on time persisted.

He outlined the stress caused by that, as well as the knock-on financial impacts in his own life, his multiple engagements to resolve the problem, and the varying explanations/undertakings provided. Emails were exhibited, as part of the Complainant’s case. The Complainant confirmed, at the date of the hearing, that he had now been paid in full, but expressed concerns as to the certainty of receiving his salary fully and on time going forward.

No appearance was entered by or on behalf of the Respondent.

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 defines wages as:-

“"wages", in relation to an employee, means 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, and

(b)   any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice”

The Payment of Wages Act 1991 governs the lawfulness of deductions from wages at section 5 where it sets out, as follows:-

“5.— (1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a)   the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b)   the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c)    in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.”

s. 6 (2) sets out the jurisdiction of the Adjudication Officer, as follows:-

“Where a rights commissioner decides, as respects a complaint under this section in relation to a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is well-founded in regard to the whole or a part of the deduction or payment, the commissioner shall order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he thinks reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding –  (a) the net amount of the wages (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that –

(i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or

(ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,

or

(b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.

I found the Complainant to be a credible and cogent witness, at hearing, and I fully accept his evidence.

The Adjudication Officer clarified the limits of her jurisdiction for the Complainant, at the hearing.

As the Complainant’s salary had been paid in full, at the time of the hearing, I find that I have no further jurisdiction, under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, with respect to same. I therefore find that this complaint is not well founded.

For the reasons set out above, I find that this complaint is not well-founded.

Payment of Wages Act; Salary paid in full but paid late on several occasions; No further jurisdiction; Not well founded;