ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050027
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jelson Judas Moraes | Hackett Mitchell LTD trading as The Palm Restaurant |
Representatives | John Connor |
|
Complaint(s):
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-00060992-010 | 10/01/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/09/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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.
Background:
This complaint concerns annual leave allegedly owing to the Complainant on cessation of his employment.
A hearing was scheduled for the 30th of May 2024 and both parties attended remotely. However that hearing was adjourned due to difficulties in conducting a remote hearing in the context of the Complainant’s limited English.
The Complainant, his representative Mr. John Connor and a translator attended the subsequent hearing organised on the 18th of September 2024. The WRC Was unable to obtain a Konkani translator and the Complainant agreed to Hindi translator.
However, in the resumed hearing the Complainant stated that he preferred to communicate through English. I was satisfied, in the context of an in person hearing, that the Complainant was able to provide evidence and answer questions in English on the relatively narrow issues before me.
The Respondent did not attend the in person hearing on the 18th of September.
They were written to at the same address the notification for the 30th of May went to. As such I am satisfied they were on notice of the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant provided evidence under affirmation in English. His representative Mr Connor made oral submissions on his behalf. He worked for the Respondent from 27th January 2023 until 3rd of September 2023. He was dismissed suddenly as a result of the Respondent’s financial situation and was not paid notice nor the leave owing to him on cessation. He was subsequently paid the notice. He continued to write to the Respondent to no avail. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the resumed hearing or make any written submissions. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant's contract of employment stated that his pay was €12 an hour. His contract further set out that his annual leave entitlement was 8% of hours worked. The Complainant estimates that 9 months worked over 1400 hours and calculates that his holiday entitlement is at least €1,351. He was not paid this on cessation. On review of Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act and the Complainant's evidence I am satisfied that this sum was payable to the employee and is encompassed by the definition of wages outlined in that Section. As per Section 5 of the act no deduction of that sum was permitted unless the Respondent could demonstrate that one of the exceptions contained within the act applied. The Respondent did not attend and provide evidence of any such exception nor did they contradict the Complainant's evidence that he was not paid that sum As such I find that the complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €1,351. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €1,351 |
Dated: 20-09-24
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|