ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052721
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Vincent Moore | Analog Digital Systems |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Self-Represented | No 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-00064295-001 | 24/06/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/09/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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:
The Complainant represented himself at the hearing. Email correspondence was received from the Complainant in support of his complaint.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
It was the Complainant’s evidence that he was owed the sum of €1,800 net pay from the Respondent in lieu of termination of his employment. The Complainant stated he resigned on 11 March 2024 and his last working day was 15 March 2024. The Complainant also sought payment for annual leave but was unable to provide the total annual leave he believed he was entitled to upon termination. Upon inquiry, the Complainant accepted he received a contract of employment in February 2024 but did not read it or sign it. As it was sent to his work email, he no longer had access to it. Asked if he received payslips , he referred to an email forwarded from Mr Henry O’Grady with payslips, but it was the Complainant’s evidence that he never received the attached payslips. The Complainant submitted that he was paid €900 net per week but did not know how much his gross wage was. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no appearance on behalf of the Complainant. The hearing notification letter and remote notification were sent by registered post. After waiting a reasonable period of time, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 defines wages as:- "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. In particular to the Complainant’s complaint is part (b) of the definition. Where the Complainant terminated his employment , as evidenced from the email of 11 March 2024 and in the absence of presentation of a contract of employment, I am not satisfied that the Complainant is due payment in lieu of notice. Consequently, I find the complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 18-09-24
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Payment of Wages – Payment in Lieu of Notice – Resignation |