ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052079
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Gabriel Garcia | Latin Sangria Ltd |
Representatives |
| Mary Carol Godoy (Company Owner) |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00063707-001 | 24/05/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00063707-002 | 24/05/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00063707-003 | 24/05/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00063707-004 | 24/05/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/09/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015, made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I (an Adjudicator so appointed) have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or complaints. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered.
In particular, the Complainant herein has referred a number of complaints under one Act - The Organisation of Working Time Act 1997:
The Complainant has asserted that the Respondent Employer has contravened Section 11 of the Act which concerns daily rest periods. The Complainant has further alleged that the Respondent has contravened Section 21 of the Act which sets out those circumstances which give rise to Entitlement in respect of public holidays. The last complaint under the Organisation of working time is an allegation that the Respondent has contravened Section 14 which concerns Sunday working arrangements.
In addition to the foregoing, the Complainant has made a further complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 and where such a complaint is presented the Director General is empowered to refer that complaint forward for adjudication by an Adjudication Officer pursuant to Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. Following the said referral,it is incumbent on the assigned Adjudicator to make all relevant enquiries into the complaint. This will include hearing oral evidence, considering submissions made and receiving other relevant evidence.
In particular, the Complainant herein has referred the following complaint:
A complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a Complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.
Background:
This matter was to be heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by the process of having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that. Had evidence been given, I was in a position to fully exercise my functions and I would have made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.
In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was to be conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.
Had evidence been given it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came into effect on the 29th of July 2021, and which said legislation accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence.
The Complaint herein was brought to the attention of the WRC on the 24th of May 2024 by way of a workplace relations complaint form. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 11th of July 2024 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means when filling out his complaint form. From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant seeks to establish that there were issues concerning compliance with the Organisation of Working Time obligations as well as an unlawful deduction from his salary. The Complainant did not further substantiate the claims set out in the workplace relations complaint form. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent had representation at this hearing in the person of Ms G who I understand is a co-owner of the Company. I understand that the Respondent evidence, had it been led, would have been a full defence of the issues raised. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant did not attend. It is noted that the WRC made a number of attempts by both phone and email to contact the Complainant at the appointed time for the hearing. The Complainant did not respond, and the remote hearing had to be abandoned. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00063707-001 – No evidence was heard, and the complaint is therefore not well founded. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00063707-002 - No evidence was heard, and the complaint is therefore not well founded. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00063707-003 - No evidence was heard, and the complaint is therefore not well founded. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00063707-004 - No evidence was heard, and the complaint is therefore not well founded.
|
Dated: 14th November 2024.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|