ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052776
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Vasile Butnaru | Contrail Fitout Management |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Vasile Butnaru | Contrail Fitout Management |
Representatives | self | No show |
Complaint(s):
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-00064343-001 | 26/06/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/09/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant worked as a contractor with the Respondent who is engaged in the construction sector.
He claims that the Respondent told him that outstanding monies due to him would be paid. The Complaints form details the alleged non-payments as follows: “The following dates are the monetary pay not received: 07/02/23-10/02/23, 32 unpaid hours 20/03/23-25/03/23, 48 unpaid hours 06/06/23-09/06/23, 32 unpaid hours 08/07/23-14/07/23, 48 unpaid hours 17/07/23-22/07/23, 48 unpaid hours Also, 2 payments of 2,240.00 were declared through revenue on 06/07/23, with tax withheld of 448.00 each, with both payments still very unclear of.”
The Complaint was lodged with the Commission on the 26th of June 2024.
At the first day of hearing held 29th of August 2024 it was explained that a reason for the delay would be required to be explain why the complaint was lodged out of time.
The Complainant stated the Respondent has told him that he would pay him and based on that representation he had delayed making his application to the Commission. The Adjudicator requested evidence that would support that contention and the Complainant stated that he had a witness who would corroborate what he was saying.
A reconvened hearing was held on the 11th of September 2024 to hear evidence about the representation being relied upon. No evidence was presented at the reconvened hearing
The Adjudicator wrote to the Complainant as follows, after the second hearing:
Dear Mr Butnaru,
The complaints that you make appear to be out time based on the facts presented to date.
Dear sir/madam, The following dates are the monetary pay not received: 07/02/23-10/02/23, 32 unpaid hours 20/03/23-25/03/23, 48 unpaid hours 06/06/23-09/06/23, 32 unpaid hours 08/07/23-14/07/23, 48 unpaid hours 17/07/23-22/07/23, 48 unpaid hours Also, 2 payments of 2,240.00 were declared through revenue on 06/07/23, with tax withheld of 448.00 each, with both payments still very unclear of.
At the hearing you stated that this arose because your Employer made a promise to pay you later and you relied on this promise. There is no evidence before me to corroborate that allegation and at the last day it was explained to you that direct evidence to presented at the hearing would be needed. You stated that you would be calling a witness to support that case. A hearing will be rescheduled to hear that witness. Please confirm who the witness is and that the witness will attend at the next hearing date.
If I do not hear from you by the 14th of November 2024 with the witness name and confirmation that the witness will attend at a scheduled hearing, I will proceed with a decision based on the evidence before me.
Yours sincerely,
The Complainant has not communicated with the Commission and based on the evidence presented; the Commission has no jurisdiction to hear the Complaint, as it is out of time. |
PRELIMINARY MATTER:
A preliminary point arises regarding the jurisdiction to hear the Complaint as it was lodged with the Commission more than 6 months after the alleged unlawful non-payment of wages occurred. No evidence to support the claim that the delay occurred due to a misrepresentation other than what the Complainant stated was provided at the hearing. The Complainant stated that he could corroborate his case that he was deceived in essence by the Respondent who promised to pay him. As no witness attended the second day of hearing as requested and no evidence of any such witness willing to give evidence was named; on balance it must be concluded that it would be unsafe to conclude that misrepresentation did occur. Every opportunity for the Complainant to engage with the Commission on this matter has been provided and in the interest of fairness and efficiency, and the absence of some corroboration of misrepresentation, I determine the complaint to be out of time.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
See Preliminary Matter. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent failed to attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
On the evidence and dates of alleged non-payment and the time frame to lodge the complaint within 6 months of the contravention the complaints are out time. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The Complaints have been lodge outside the 6 -month statutory timeframe and absent of a reason to explain the delay I must find that the complaints are not well founded. |
Dated: 13-01-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Time limits. |