ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049801
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ishal Singh | Back to Front Hospitality Limited |
Complaint:
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-00061126-001 | 22/01/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, this complaint was assigned to me by the Director General. I conducted a remote hearing on April 26th 2024 and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint. The complainant, Mr Ishaal Singh represented himself. Back to Front Hospitality Limited was represented by the managing director, Mr Richard Gavin, and a director, Mr John O’Mahony.
While the parties are named in this Decision, from here on, I will refer to Mr Singh as “the complainant” and to Back to Front Hospitality Limited as “the respondent.”
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The respondent has a contract to run the restaurants in Brown Thomas in Dublin and Cork. On November 16th 2023, the complainant commenced employment as an executive chef in the Grafton Street premises. He was dismissed just over seven weeks later, on January 8th 2024. In breach of section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the complainant claims that he was not paid the wages due to him for the last three weeks of his employment. On the form he submitted to the WRC, he said that he was made liable for the cost of his work visa which was paid for by his employer. He said that, in the event of his employment being terminated, his contract did not state that he would be liable for this cost. When he was dismissed, the complainant was not paid his net wages of €1,300 for the last two weeks that he worked. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
In the respondent’s submission, Mr Gavin accepted that it was an error to deduct money from the complainant’s wages to cover the cost of his work permit and that they have ceased this practice. Mr Gavin said that the company tried to contact the complainant to transfer the funds to him, but that he did not engage with them. The respondent accepts that the complainant is owed three weeks’ wages and a week’s pay in lieu of notice. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I agree with the respondent’s conclusion that it was an error make a deduction from the wages of the complainant to cover the cost of procuring a work permit. |
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 decide that this complaint is well founded. In accordance with section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (as amended), I am required to direct the respondent to pay compensation as a net amount. Estimating the deductions for PAYE, PRSI and USC, I decide that the respondent is to pay the complainant compensation of €2,500, equivalent to four weeks’ net pay. Unless the complainant provides the respondent’s payroll department with an alternative bank account, this money should be transferred to the bank account that the complainant nominated to have his wages paid into when he was employed by the respondent. |
Dated: 17-05-24
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Work permit, deduction from wages |