ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053349
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sogo Ogunmola | BGS Security Ltd |
Representatives | Represented himself | Did not attend the hearing |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00065330-001 | 11/08/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/11/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, this complaint was assigned to me by the Director General. A hearing was scheduled for November 29th 2024, for the parties to have an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint. The complainant, Mr Sogo Ogunmola, represented himself, with the assistance of an interpreter, Ms Yetunde Martins. No one attended to represent the respondent, BGS Security Limited. Because the complainant didn’t know the full name of any manager in the company, notice of the hearing was not sent to a named person and I was concerned that the respondent may not have been properly on notice. I therefore adjourned the proceedings on November 29th 2024 and I wrote to the two directors named on the most recent annual return submitted to the Companies Registration Office, requesting them to attend a hearing on February 14th 2025.
The directors did not attend the hearing on February 14th and no one attended to represent them. I have therefore reached the conclusions set out below based on the evidence of the complainant.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The respondent is a licensed security business, providing static guards mainly to the retail sector. The complainant was living in accommodation for international protection applicants and, in his evidence at the hearing, he said that he and others were advised to do training to obtain a licence to work as a security guard. He did the training and he then got a WhatsApp message offering him a job with the respondent. He started on April 17th 2024. His hourly rate was €12.90 and he received an additional 5 cents per hour for working on Sundays. A payslip he produced in evidence shows that, in the two weeks from the 17th until the 30th of April, he worked for the respondent for 100.25 hours. His gross pay was €1,293.58. He received net pay of €1,282.72. The complainant’s payslip for May 2024 shows that he worked 240 hours that month, including four Sundays and the public holiday on May 6th. This is equivalent to an average of 60 hours per week. His payslip shows that he earned €3,099.96, inclusive of the 5 cent per hour Sunday premium and €10.75 per hour for working on the public holiday. His net pay was €2,621. Although he was issued with a payslip, he received no wages. A payslip dated June 30th 2024 shows that the complainant worked for 143 hours up to the end of June, including two Sundays and the June public holiday. His payslip shows that he earned €1,841.35. His net pay was €1,690.12. Again, although he was issued with a payslip, the complainant said that no wages were transferred to his bank account. At the hearing, the complainant showed me messages sent to him on WhatsApp from a manager who he understood to be called “John.” He does not know the manager’s surname. The complainant said that he worked at a different location every day and the WhatsApp messages show that John told him where to go every day. The messages also show that, from the end of May, the complainant made constant enquiries about his wages. The replies show that John told him that he would be paid. The WhatsApp record shows that the complainant phoned John numerous times and that he got no answer. In early July, the complainant wrote to John on WhatsApp and told him that he had contacted the Workplace Relations Commission to make a complaint. He then sent John a message telling him that he was leaving. On July 11th, the complainant was removed from the company’s “Zoom Shift” app and he wasn’t rostered for any more shifts. On July 16th 2024, the complainant received a message on WhatsApp from the telephone number he associated with “John.” The message stated as follows: “Dear Employees In order to avoid further delays in wages the pay date will change to the 19th of the month so that no more delays will occur. Best regards, Hugh Downes and the Management Team.” The annual return in the Companies Registration Office shows that Hugh Downes is a director of BGS Security Limited. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides that, to ground a complaint under the Act, wages must be properly payable: (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. In 2024, more than two dozen similar complaints were submitted to the WRC by former employees of this company. All the complainants are foreign nationals and many are international protection applicants. Eight hearings have taken place and findings have been published. In each case, the complainants said that the respondent paid their wages for a short period and then didn’t pay wages for the following weeks. With no outcome from their persistent enquiries, they became frustrated and left. The evidence of the complainant was consistent with that of his former colleagues and was entirely credible. He received his wages for his first two weeks from April 17th until the 30th and he wasn’t paid after that. He left at the end of June. I am satisfied that the respondent had an opportunity to explain their failure to pay the complainant eight weeks’ wages for work that he did from May 1st until June 30th 2024. As his evidence has not been rebutted, I am satisfied that his complaint is well founded. I find therefore that, in breach of section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, net pay for eight weeks amounting to €4,311.61 which was properly payable to the complainant has not been paid. When his employment ended, based on having worked for 10 weeks, the complainant had an entitlement to four days’ holiday pay. If it had been possible for him to continue working for the respondent, on July 1st 2024, in accordance with the Employment Regulation Order for the Security Industry (SI 319 of 2024) his hourly rate would have increased to €14.50. Based on his payslips, I have calculated that the complainant worked an average of 12 hours per day over 10 weeks from April 17th until June 30th 2024. I am satisfied therefore, that he is entitled to holiday pay of €696 (12 hours per day x 4 days @ €14.50 per hour). |
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 decide that this complaint is well founded. In accordance with section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (as amended), I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €5,007.61, comprising wages not paid up to June 30th 2024 and the outstanding holiday pay due at the termination of his employment. |
Dated: 18th February 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Wages not paid |