Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Graham  Fitzpatrick

Duke Marketing Ltd.

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-00061536-001

13/02/2024

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 hearing was held remotely. The respondent indicated to the concierge that he had not been made aware of the hearing details in advance. Although the hearing invitation was sent electronically to the wrong e-mail address, the hearing details were provided to the respondent by post. The concierge contacted the respondent and sent him the hearing invitation to the correct address. He declined to attend the hearing of this matter. As to his receiving notification of the hearing, the complainant provided written confirmation that the respondent was aware of the complaint and had received notification by post. I find it difficult to believe that an additional letter posted to the same address a couple of weeks later was not delivered. The hearing preceded in the absence of the respondent.

The complainant gave his evidence under oath.

The complainant submitted that he was not paid his wages for the month of December 2023 and for the first half of January 2024. He submitted that he was not paid notice nor was he paid for 10 days holidays.

In evidence the complainant submitted that he was not told by the respondent that he was dismissed at the end of 2023. He stated that he only became aware of this fact when he was doing his taxes on the 16 January 2024. He stated that he worked for the first two weeks of January until he became aware of this fact. The complainant stated that he was not paid for the month of December nor for the two weeks of January that he worked for the respondent. He stated that his salary was €33,600 per year and that his monthly gross salary was €2800. Accordingly, he calculated that he was owed €4200 in unpaid wages. He stated that he was not provided with his notice period and was owed €1400 in this regard. He also noted that he was owed 10 days holidays, and this amounted to a further €1400.

The respondent did not attend the hearing of this complaint.

The complainant stated that he was owed €7000 in unpaid wages. He noted that he was given neither contract of employment nor regular pay slips. He confirmed that he was employed by the respondent and provided revenue documentation in support of this contention. He also provided a copy of a WhatsApp message from the respondent confirming that it had received notification of the complaint from the WRC at the address provided.

The complainant came across as a credible witness and provided whatever documentation he had in his possession in support of his contention regarding the payment of wages complaint.

The respondent was notified of the complaint, and this was confirmed in writing to the complainant. Some weeks later the WRC sent him notification of the hearing details. I find it incredible that the respondent would have received one letter but not the other. Notwithstanding the allegations of the respondent that he was unaware of the hearing, he was provided with the link and was advised to attend the hearing to put any issues in person to the adjudicator. He failed to do so.  On balance I find that the respondent was aware of the hearing details and proceed to hear the matter.

The payment of wages act defines wages as including X.

"wages", in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—

(a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and

(b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice:

Provided however that the following payments shall not be regarded as wages for the purposes of this definition:

(i) any payment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment,

(ii) any payment by way of a pension, allowance or gratuity in connection with the death, or the retirement or resignation from his employment, of the employee or as compensation for loss of office,

(iii) any payment referable to the employee's redundancy,

(iv) any payment to the employee otherwise than in his capacity as an employee,

(v) any payment in kind or benefit in kind,

(vi) any payment by way of tips or gratuities.

Having regard to the written and oral evidence submitted, I find that the complaint is well founded, and that the Act was contravened when the complainant was left short of €7000 in respect of wages as defined under the Act. I find that the complainant is entitled to this sum less any lawful deductions in compensation for the contravention.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complaint is well founded, and that the Act was contravened.  I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €7000 less any lawful deductions which I consider to be reasonable in the circumstances.

Payment of Wages – well founded complaint - Act contravened – award of compensation