ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048915
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Maelle Boutin | Town House Leisure |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
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-00060172-001 | 22/11/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015, the Director General of the WRC may make a referral of said matter to the Adjudication Services.
Following said referral, I can confirm that I was ready to fulfil my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. I have additionally and where appropriate allowed time to hear the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and to take account of any evidence to be tendered during the course of the hearing.
The Complainant has brought a complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015.
In particular, the Complainant herein has referred the following complaint:
A complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a Complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.
Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 sets out the instances wherein deductions can and cannot be made.
Section 5 (1) states that an employer shall not make a deduction from an employee unless:
The deduction is required by Statute or Instrument;
The Deduction is required by the Contract of employment;
The employee has given his prior consent in writing;
Section 5 (2) does allow for some limited instances for deduction in respect of an Act or Omission or for the provision of something to the Employee. This might be where the deduction is specifically provided for in the Contract of Employment (and so on notice), the deduction is considered to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances and the Employee is on notice of the existence and effect of the said terms which the Employer claims allows for the deduction.
Background:
This hearing was to be conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was to be conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing. Had evidence been given it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came intoeffecton the 29th of July 2021, and which said legislation accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence. The Complaint herein was brought to the attention of the WRC on the 22nd of November 2023 by way of a workplace relations complaint form.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 4th day of March 2024 - and emailed on that date to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means when filling out her complaint form. I note that there had been some email communication between the Complainant and the WRC in the interim. From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant seeks to establish that she was significantly underpaid for periods of employment with the Respondent entity. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 4th of March 2024 - and sent to the address provided by the Complainant. It appears that the named Respondent has not engaged with this process from the start. It also appears there might have been issues with service.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant did not attend to make her claim. The Complainant is obliged to make her case to succeed in having a decision made in her favour. |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00060172-001 – The Complainant has not established that this complaint is well-founded, and the complaint therefore fails.
|
Dated: 31/05/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|