Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Tomislav  Pogacic

Irish Pizza Company t/a Dublin Pizza Company

Representatives

  N/A

 N/A

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-00067492-001

19/11/2024

The Complainant worked as a Pizza Chef for the Respondent from 9 August 2024 until the end of October 2024. He worked approximately 42 to 45 hours per week, earning €14 per hour. The Complainant submitted his Complaint Form to the WRC on 19 November 2024. The Complainant submits that, although he was provided with the relevant payslips, the Respondent failed to pay him for two separate weeks, when payment fell due on 26 September 2024 and 3 October 2024. The Complainant submits that he is owed €519.47 and €564.55 for those two weeks respectively.

The Complainant provided written and oral submissions.

Preliminary Matter – Correct Respondent:

At the outset of the Hearing, the Complainant was asked to confirm the Respondent’s correct name. The Complainant referred both to his payslips and to his Revenue Online Service (“ROS”) details. The Complainant confirmed that his former employer is named on his payslip as “Irish Pizza Ventures” and that his former employer is named on ROS as “Irish Pizza Ventures Limited”.  In the circumstances, the Complainant confirmed that he had incorrectly named the Respondent on the WRC Complaint Form as “Irish Pizza Company”.

Substantive Matter – Payment of Wages:

The Complainant submitted that he was employed as a Pizza Chef by the Respondent from 9 August 2024 until the end of October 2024. He outlined that he made pizza bases.

He stated that the Respondent provided him with payslips and initially failed to pay him for three separate weeks. He outlined that he received one outstanding payment of approximately €602 in December 2024, however, he remains to be paid for two separate weeks when payment fell due on 26 September 2024 and 3 October 2024. The Complainant submits that he is owed €519.47 and €564.55 for those two weeks respectively.

The Complainant stated that he asked Stephen, the Manager, and Ante, the Head Chef, about his pay. Stephen, the Manager, told him that Mr. Michael Ryan, the company owner would pay him. Stephen stated that the accountant who had been dealing with payments had quit and that Mr. Ryan did not know how to send payments. Stephen reassured the Complainant that he would be paid and that he was the first in the company due to be paid.

The Complainant stated that he last went to work at the end of October 2024. He said that he went on sick leave from 1 November 2024 until 15 November 2024, due to stress and back pain. He said that he did not return to work. He said that it was a hostile environment and that two colleagues were aggressive towards him.

The Complainant stated that he sent text messages to Stephen regarding his pay but received no response. He stated that he also emailed Mr. Ryan regarding his pay but received no response. The Complainant submitted that although he received one of his originally outstanding payments for approximately €602 in December 2024, he received no communication regarding that payment.

The Complainant stated that he is currently looking for a job.

The Respondent did not attend the Hearing.

I noted that the Respondent was informed of the details of the Hearing by way of letter dated 14 January 2025. The Respondent was also emailed the remote Hearing details on 11 February 2025.

The Respondent did not attend the Hearing on 12 February 2025 as scheduled. The WRC attempted to contact the Respondent by phone but received no response. A grace period was also allowed for the Respondent to attend.

The Law:

Preliminary Decisions:

In Brothers of Charity (Roscommon) Ltd. v. Marian Keigher EDA1014, the Labour Court considered the determination of an issue by way of preliminary decision. The Labour Court referred to the judgments of Kenny J. in Tara Explorations and Development Co. Ltd v. Minister for Industry and Commerce [1975] IR 242; and Hardiman J. in B.T.F. v. Director of Public Prosecutions 2 ILRM 367 (the “B.T.F. Case”). In the latter case Hardiman J, found:

"It is often a difficult and delicate decision as to whether to try a particular issue as a preliminary matter. In a case where a point is raised which in and of itself and without regard to anything else may terminate the whole proceedings, clearly a strong case can be made for its trial as a preliminary issue. The classic example is where the Statute of Limitations is pleaded. In other cases, however, the position may be much less clear".

In Donegal Meat Processors v. Donal Gillespie t/a Foyle Donegal UDD2114, the Labour Court noted that, seeking for the substantive issue and the jurisdictional issue to be dealt with together, was:

“akin to asking the court to exercise its jurisdiction before it determines whether or not it has jurisdiction in the first instance. […] Only if the court determines that it has jurisdiction to do so can it go on to consider the fairness or otherwise of the dismissal itself”.

Findings and Conclusion:

Following the caselaw outlined above and particularly the B.T.F. Case, I find that there is a “strong case” for determining this matter by way of preliminary decision.

Having heard the Complainant’s evidence, I am satisfied that the Complainant has not named thecorrect respondent in this complaint. Therefore this complaint is not well founded.

I find that the Complainant has not named the correct respondent in this complaint and therefore I decide that the complaint is not well founded.

Payment of Wages Act 1991, Incorrect Respondent.