Complainant

Respondent

Parties

James Adewale  Ajibola

Bgs Security Limited Bgss

Representatives

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-00066450-001

03/10/2024

The Complainant was employed with the Respondent from 30 July 2024 to 9 September 2024. He contended that he had not been paid by his employer for the wages relating to the entire period of employment.

The Respondent is a security company.  The Respondent did not provide any submission and did not attend the hearing.

In his complaint form the Complainant submitted that he should have received his wages but that he had not received those wages.  He also submitted copies of a number of emails and WhatsApp message to support his contention.

Complainants’ evidence given under oath at hearing

At hearing the Complainant confirmed that he commenced employment on 30 July 2024 and that he reported to a Manager, whom he referred to as Alex.  He was unaware of the manager’s surname. He confirmed that in July he worked for just 1 day and that he had expected to be paid for that day the following week.  He advised that when he raised the matter with the manager, he was told that payment was made on a monthly basis and that he would receive the monies due later in the month. 

The Complainant outlined that he worked through the month of August as he expected to be paid based on the response he had received from his manager.  He stated that he began to be concerned when he was told by others on the site that he might not be paid.  He stated that he phoned his manager and told him what had been said but that the manager had advised him that it was a lie.  He stated that the Respondent had sent him payslips which showed that payment had been made, he received one in August relating to July work done, in September relating to work done in August and in October in relation to work done in September.  He stated that although he received the payslips, he never actually received any money. 

The Complainant stated that he had checked the Revenue website and he noted that the Respondent had returned information to Revenue that indicated he had been paid but that he had not received any monies into his bank account.  He drew attention to emails sent to the Respondent by him in August and September where he continued to draw attention to the fact that he had not been paid and where he also drew attention to the dire consequence for him and his family of being left without his wages.  He indicated that he did not receive any response to those emails.

The Complainant also drew attention to screenshots of a number of messages exchanged between him and the Respondent in relation to frequency of pay where he queried discrepancies between what the Respondent had told him and the records on the Revenue website and he provided a copy of a WhatsApp message from the Respondent to a group of staff where the Respondent apologised for the delay in payments and confirmed that those would be paid the following week.  Again, the Complainant confirmed that he never got paid.

The Complainant provided copies of screenshots of phone logs that showed that he had attempted to call the Respondent over the course of several days and that on those occasions he either received a text response to say the Respondent was busy or he got no answer.  The Complainant stated that ultimately, he was left with no option but to resign from the Respondent and submit his complaint to the Workplace relations Commission. 

The Complainant confirmed that he had worked a total of 230.17 hours inclusive of public holidays and unsocial hours entitlements and that his hourly rate was €14.50.

The complainant sought payment of the wages owed to him.

The Respondent did not attend and submitted no evidence. The Adjudicator was satisfied that proper notice of the date, time and place of the Hearing had been properly communicated to the Respondent.

Despite the copies of the Revenue information provided by the Complainant which showed payments as having been made to the Complainant I am satisfied, based on his oral evidence and on the basis of emails provided, that the Complainant was not paid the wages due to him from July to September 2024.  The emails clearly demonstrate that he was continuously raising his concerns regarding the non-payment during the period of time when the Respondent was issuing payslips to him and making returns to Revenue to indicate that he had been paid.  In the absence of any evidence to the contrary being adduced before me I must conclude that the Complainant did not get paid the relevant wages.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act ,1991 states:

“5.— (1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it”

In this case the Employee, the Complainant, did not agree to a Deduction i.e., the non-payment of his full wages.  The Complainant was clear and unambiguous that the contrary was, in fact, the case; where he actively sought the payment of the monies owed to him by the Respondent. The emails provided by the Complainant clearly demonstrated that he was in serious financial difficulty and that he was reduced to borrowing and begging in order to meet basic requirements like food and shelter.  It is a particularly egregious feature of this complaint that emails containing information of these dire circumstances and serious mental health implications appear to have been left unanswered by Respondent.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing, did not make contact with the Workplace Relations Commission to explain its non-attendance and did not submit any evidence in relation to the complaint.

On the basis of the evidence adduced before me and in the absence of any evidence being adduced to the contrary, I must find that this complaint is well founded.

The complaint is deemed to be well founded.  In those circumstances it is directed that the sum of €3,337.47, being the outstanding wages for the months of July, August and September 2024, be paid without delay to the Complainant.

It is expected that the payment will be made within six weeks of the date of this Adjudication decision.

Payment of wages