Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Vaidas  Dvarzeckas

Las Security Ltd

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Tony McArdle

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-00066472-001

04/10/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and a witness for the respondent gave evidence under affirmation.  Cross examination relevant to the complaint was facilitated.

The hearing proceeded with the assistance of an interpreter provided by the WRC.

The complainant was employed as a security guard with the respondent and submitted that when he returned from holidays, he was informed that the company was no longer involved in the project at his previous place of employment.  He was given a roster that indicated he was to work in a different location. He stated that when he turned up at that location there was another security guard there, so he went home. He submitted that he wrote to the company stating he was given the wrong schedule. He submitted that he was told that they would figure out everything. He stated that after texting the respondent everyone disappeared. He went on sick leave after a month due to the stress of everything.

The complainant submitted that he was paid €700 per week and that he was not paid for the period from 15 April to 17 May.

The respondent submitted that complainant is a security officer and gets paid for the hours he worked. The witness confirmed that complainant’s contract indicates a weekly schedule of up to 39 hours per week. It also provided for overtime payments, if he was working more than that. The witness noted that contract of employment indicates that locations may change.

The witness stated that they were no longer at the main location that the complainant worked at previously and that all staff were written to.  He noted however that the complainant was on holidays. He was sent to roster indicating his new location but indicated that one site was too far and that another site was even further. The witness stated that it was his understanding that the complainant arrived at the site but didn't get out of his car after seeing another security guard and then he returned home.

The respondent witness noted that the complainant did not contact them but that he himself contacted the complainant later that day and the complainant said that he thought he was being tricked by the respondent. The witness said the roster was sent to the complainant and provided the roster in writing in advance of the hearing. The witness noted that the complainant did not want to do his roster, he didn't want to work and as he had not shown up to work, he was not paid.

The complainant submitted that he showed up to a new work location but upon seeing another security guard got back into his car and returned home. He did not attend the place of work the following day nor the day after that.  He stated that the respondents all disappeared and did not contact him by phone.  However, that version of events is not borne out by either the texts submitted by the complainant nor those submitted by the respondent.  The series of texts provided by both the complainant and the respondent indicate that the respondent was repeatedly offering the complainant the opportunity to work but the complainant did not avail of that opportunity.

From the evidence submitted, particularly the text message threads, it appears that the respondent offered the complainant the opportunity to work but he did not avail of that opportunity.  Accordingly, the complainant has not demonstrated that he was entitled to be paid for periods where he was offered work but did not turn up.  I find that the complaint of a contravention of the Act is not well founded.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded.

Payment of Wages – complaint not well founded.