ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049339
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Liam Krewer | 9Th Impact Ltd |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
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-00060621-001 | 19/12/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
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.
The hearing was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Parties were advised in advance of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted. Where submissions were received, they were exchanged. The complainant gave evidence under affirmation. The respondent did not attend the hearing.
Background:
The complainant submits that he did not get paid all monies properly payable. The respondent did not attend the hearing . |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant gave evidence that he commenced employment on 5/03/2018 and that he worked as a software engineer. The company appeared to be going through funding difficulties post-Covid and the complainant handed in his notice on 15/09/2023 and his employment ended on 13/10/2023. The complainant secured a pay slip for October 2023 which suggested that he had received payment for the time he worked but he did not. The complainant said that often the pay slips were given before payment was actually paid into this bank account and he provided details of his bank statement. His final pay slip suggests that €2,117.29 nett was paid which is set out as €2,272.72 gross on the pay slip. The complainant submits that €2,222.00 gross is properly payable to him. He requested payment from the respondent on numerous occasions but they have advised that there is no money and he provided WhatsApp messages of exchanges with the respondent regarding this.
The complainant submitted that there were other concerns regarding pension payments which appear to have been resolved. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend. On the morning of the hearing the WRC made contact with the respondent and forwarded them again the link for the hearing but they did not attend and no further contact could be made with them. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant submits that €2,222.00 gross is owed to him as monies properly payable for the period 01/10/2023 till 13/10/2023. The respondent did not attend the hearing and I am satisfied that they are on proper notice of the hearing.
Section (6) provides that where— (a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or (b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee, then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.
For a breach of the Act to occur, the wages must be properly payable within the cognisable period and I note that the complaint was submitted on 19/12/2023. The Employment Appeals Tribunal held in Sullivan v Department of Education PW 2/1997 (reported at [1998] E.L.R. 217) that, “if an employee does not receive what is properly payable to him or her from the outset then this can amount to a deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act”.
The complainant’s undisputed credible evidence is that €2,222.00 gross are monies properly payable and I note the bank statements and pay slips provided. I find, therefore, in favour of the complainant and find that his complaint is well founded and that the monies properly payable to him during the cognisable period is €2,222.00. |
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, in favour of the complainant and find that his complaint is well founded and that the monies properly payable to him during the cognisable period is €2,222.00 gross. |
Dated: 7th of May 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Payment of wages, monies properly payable, |