ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052170
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Bhoopathy Janan Manjula Ravichandran | BGS Security Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Non-Appearance |
Complaint:
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-00063920-001 | 05/06/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/08/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Affirmation or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Oath / Affirmation was administered to all witnesses present. The legal peril of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
No issue regarding confidentiality arose.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Security Officer by the Respondent Security Company from 3rd March 2024 to the 8th April 2024. He alleges that he was not paid for his period of work.
The rate of pay was stated to have been the Security ERO rate for a 20-hour week. |
Non-Appearance of Respondent employer
The Respondent Employer did not attend the Hearing. I was satisfied that proper notice of the time, place and date of the Hearing had been given. A period, post the Hearing, was allowed for Respondent communications to explain their non-attendance. Nothing was received.
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was hired by the Respondent employer on or about the 3rd March 2024. He received no payment for his work. He estimated that a sum of € 1,582 is now owing to him. He resigned from the Company on the 8th April 2024 as despite numerous requests he had not been paid. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the Oral Hearing. No evidence, oral or written, was given on his behalf. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant gave Sworn evidence as to his complaint. He supported his case with some written materials. He presented as a reliable witness who was a Post Graduate Student at a City University. It appeared that he had been registered by the Respondent with Revenue as an Employee and that wages had been, allegedly, paid to him. However, on examination of his Bank records, supplied, it appeared that no payment actually, physically, ever went to him. Accordingly on the basis of his sworn evidence, his financial records and the non-appearance of the Employer to give rebuttal evidence, the Adjudication finding has to be, under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991, that the sum of € 1,582 is due to the Complainant.
|
4: Decision:
CA-00063920-001
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991 the Complaint is Legally Well Founded.
I direct that the sum of €,1582 be paid to the Complainant within four weeks of the publication of this Adjudication decision.
Dated: 27th September 2024.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Arrears of Wages, Security Industry. |