Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Karoll Dayanna  Orduz Silva

Centra Eastwall

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self - represented

 Self - represented

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-00060505-001

13/12/2023

The complainant is a Columbian national. She came to Ireland to learn English. She states that on 16 November 2023, she approached the manager of the respondent store and gave her a copy of her CV and advised her that she was available for work. The complainant states that she was asked by the manager to come in to her the following day for trials. The complainant states that she passed her trials successfully and the manager asked her to come in the following day for training. The manager then told her to come in and work the following Saturday and Sunday.

The complainant states that from Monday 20 November, she started to attend the store regularly after 2 pm and leaving at 10 pm fulfilling her schedule and attending to her duties properly and being punctual. The complainant states that on 27 November, her manager informed her that she needed more training which the complainant felt was unfair and misleading. The complainant states that she was well aware that if a person attends to shifts between 5 – 8 hours per day, they are entitled to be paid a normal wage.

The complainant states that she continually carried out her shifts in the hope of being paid. The complainant states that at the end of the month she sent the manager a message stating she needed to know when she would be paid and asked what was her final schedule and her hourly wage was. The message contained all the information about the dates she worked the hours worked which came to a total of 46 hours.

The complainant states that she received no reply from her manager. She continued to send messages to the manager but to no avail.

The complainant states that the amount owed to her by the respondent is 46 hours at 11.90 per hour totalling €547.40.        

The Director of the respondent states that the complainant was never employed by it, did not receive a job offer nor was issued with a contract.

The Director states that the complainant only participated in casual visits to learn about the store’s operations which the complainant misconstrued as formal employment.

The Director states that it was apparent that the complainant’s level of English proficiency did not meet the operational requirements of the company.

The Director states that the complainant’s presence at the store was for observational learning purposes only and did not constitute formal employment. It was submitted that her attempts to interact with customers and operate the till caused confusion and service disruptions.  The Director states that when the complainant was using the till, the manager found a shortfall of €137 due to errors by the complainant.     

Having carefully examined the within complaint, I find that the complainant has established a breach under the Payment of Wages Act. I found the complainant to be a credible witness who gave cogent evidence on the matter. She also provided detailed accounts of whats app messages with the manager of the store substantiating her complaint. The complainant’s partner also gave evidence regarding dates and times that the complainant left their apartment to present for work.

I found the testimony of the Director of the respondent company to be lacking in credibility and implausible. In all of the circumstances of the within complaint, I am satisfied that the complainant is owed wages in the amount of €547.40. I find that this complaint is well-founded. I order the respondent to pay the complainant €547.40 for the breach under the Act.

I find that this complaint is well-founded. I order the respondent to pay the complainant €547.40 for the breach under the Act.

Payments of Wages Act