Complainant

Respondent

Parties

John  Ring

Sean and Aisling Developments Ltd Oakfield Construction in Liquidation  Liquidator Grant Thornton  

Representatives

  The claimant represented himself

Neither the respondent nor the Liquidator attended the hearing

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-00051510-001

01/07/2022

The claimant was employed as a Contracts Manager with the respondent from the 10th.May 2021 to the 24th.Sept. 2021

The claimant submitted the respondent was in breach of the Act for failing to pay the claimant outstanding wages, pension contributions and expenses amounting to approx.. €12,958.

The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing.

The Liquidator did not attend and advised of their non attendance in light of the claim having been referred to the WRC prior to the company going into Liquidation.

The claimant submitted that for the first eight weeks of his employment he received no pay  - he said wages were sporadic and he rarely received a payslip. He understood that payment for the first  8 weeks  (€8,000)would be paid a  later date. The claimant said that the terms of employment were agreed verbally but he did not receive written terms and conditions of employment. The terms included the pension contribution from the employer - €154.20 pw and the payment of a pension contribution from the employee - €154.20 per week   but neither contribution was lodged with the pension provider. It had been agreed that he would receive mileage rates based on the civil service scheme and expenses for phone usage – but these expenses amounting to €2,458 were never paid.  He submitted that he was owed €8,000 in unpaid wages and unpaid pension contributions amounting to €3,700.80.

  The claimant said the delay in making his complaint was attributable to his belief that the matter would be sorted. He had enjoyed a good relationship with the respondent and he believed that the matter would be resolved. The claimant said he trusted the respondent and felt sorry for him because the company was struggling financially.

The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing. The cognisable period for consideration of this complaint is 6 months from the date of receipt of the compliant by the WRC – the complaint was received on the first of July 2022. The complainant’s employment ended on the 24th.Sept. 2021. Consequently, the complaint is out of time.

At the hearing, the claimant indicated that he would submit copies of text messages and correspondence with the respondent which would explain the delay in making the complaint.

The threshold that has to be met to meet the test for reasonable cause for the delay in making the complaint to the WRC was set out by the Labour Court in the case of Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT 0338 –

“…..the claimant’s failure to present the claim within 6 months must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon .Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court as a matter of probability , that had those circumstances not been present , he would have initiated the claim in time.”

I am not satisfied that the claimant has advanced a compelling explanation for the delay in making the complaint and accordingly I deem the complaint to be out of time .

The complaint is out of time and accordingly I have no jurisdiction to investigate it.