Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Wagner Fabio  Correa

Balford Property Management Ltd, t/a Balford Property Services

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-represented

Non-attendance

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-00061493-001

10/02/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant attended the hearing, but the respondent did not.  I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice, but no communication was received from the respondent.  The hearing proceeded after a short break to enable the respondent to make contact with the WRC.  No contact was received, and the hearing commenced.

The gave his evidence under oath.  The hearing proceeded with the assistance of a Portuguese language interpreter provided by the WRC.

The complainant submitted that he was not paid for the work he carried out during the month of January.  He submitted a payslip to show the work and amounts owing to him.  He made his bank statement available at the hearing in support of his contention that the received no payment.  The complainant is claiming an amount of €3029.80 less any lawful deductions, amounting to €2,339.70.

In relation to the name of the company, the complainant indicated that he referred to the trading name of the company in his complaint as the company website does not use the official name of the company.  The complainant confirmed that the official name of the company and its trading name were on his payslip.

The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter.

The complainant submitted a complaint against the trading name of the respondent.  Having regard to the use of both legal and trading name on the complainant’s payslip and the exclusive use of the trading name on respondent’s website and in all other public and employer related dealings, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to amend the complaint to include both legal and trading names of the respondent.

Section 5(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 states as follows:

5.—(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.

The complainant submitted that the employer unlawfully deducted the amount of €3,029.80 less any lawful deductions from the complaint’s wages, amounting to €2,339.70.  He provided written documentation in support of his claim, and clarified any queries put to him.

Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, I am satisfied that the complainant has established that there was an unlawful deduction of €2,339.70 and the complaint is well founded.  I find that the act has been contravened and a direction to the respondent to pay the amount of €2,339.70 in compensation is appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act has been contravened and the complaint is well founded. I direct to respondent to pay the complainant the amount of €2,339.70 in compensation for this contravention.

Payment of Wages Act – complaint of contravention – well founded – direction regarding award of compensation