ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052766
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Nirmal George Alex | Selectasia Waterford |
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-00064552-001 | 03/07/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/01/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act [2015-2021], following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to present any relevant evidence. This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
At the outset I drew attention to the implications of the Supreme Court decision in Zalewski V Adjudication Officer and WRC [2021] IESC 24 and I note the WRC had done likewise prior to the hearing. In the course of the adjudication hearing I ensured the application of fair procedures and evidence was taken on oath/affirmation.
Preliminary:
The adjudication hearing commenced on 9/9/24 and concluded on 20/1/2025. The Complainant was unrepresented and the Respondent did not attend on either occasion. I checked the documentation and I am satisfied the Respondent was properly notified by letters of 13 August 2024, 7 November 2024 and 14 January 2025 of the arrangements for the remote adjudication hearings. Furthermore, on each occasion I waited approximately ten minutes before commencing. The Respondent did not provide any written submissions. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated he was employed by the Respondent from 12/12/2022 and that he resigned on 9/6/2024. He stated he was paid fortnightly. The Complainant stated that his gross weekly pay differed depending on how many hours he worked. The Complainant stated there was often a delay with his payments. In support of his claim the Complainant provided copies of the payslips for the periods he was not paid and bank statements. In that regard, the Complainant stated that although he received the relevant payslips he was not paid on the following pay-dates: - 17/3/2024 – on which he said he was due €509.00 gross pay and €505.75 nett - 31/3/2024 – on which he said he was due €594.73 gross pay and €589.77 nett - 14/4/2024 – on which he said he was due €559.20 gross pay and €554.94 nett - 28/4/2024 – on which he said he was due €636.40 gross pay and €630.61 nett - 12/5/2024 – on which he said he was due €635.00 gross pay and €629.23 nett - 26/5/2024 – on which he said he was due €444.50 gross pay and €442.54 nett
The Complainant stated he received partial payments on 16/5/2024 and 10/6/2024 of €475.00 and €500.00 respectively and he provided bank statements to confirm this. In total therefore, the Complainant stated he was owed €2,377.84 nett wages and that he had paid all his taxes. The Complainant stated that when he queried the lack of payments the Respondent stated that it made no sales at the time. The Complainant stated that the business had been sold “and now the management is changed. Till date my previous owner not communicated anything on this and not released my pending wages”. It is the position of the Complainant that he was a diligent worker, that he was always flexible with his hours and that whilst he understood the position with low sales, he was due the amount claimed for the work he had performed and was also seeking interest. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not put forward a case – either in person or in writing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act [1991-2017] defines wages as: (a) “any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick and maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to [the employee’s] employment, whether payable under [the] contract of employment or otherwise, and (b) any sum payable to the employee upon….termination….; Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act [1991-2017] deals with the non-payment of properly payable wages as follows: “5(6) Where— (a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or (b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee, then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion”. Based on the Complainant’s uncontested sworn evidence and the payslips dated 17/3/2024, 31/3/2024, 14/4/2024, 28/4/2024, 12/5/2024 and 26/5/2024 – I find the Complainant was entitled to be paid the nett total sum of €3,352.84 which were wages that were properly payable to him. I also find the Complainant received part payments on 16/5/2024 and 10/6/2024 of €475.00 and €500.00 respectively. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act [2015 – 2021] requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00064552-001 For the reasons outlined this complaint is well founded. Pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act [1991-2017], I hereby decide that the Respondent should pay the Complainant the nett sum of €2,377.84 - being outstanding wages which are properly payable to him. |
Dated: 28th March 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Key Words:
Unpaid Wages |