ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055447
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Tracy Stankard | Bakebarn Bakery /Coffee Shop |
Representatives | In person | Did not attend |
Complaint:
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-00067493-001 | 19/11/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/03/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following 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 complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 19th November 2024. The complaint relates to the underpayment of wages as far back as 2023. The total of the unpaid wages claimed amounts to €4,000.00. The cognisable period of the complaint is the six months prior to the referral of the complaint (20/05/2024-19/11/2024). Unpaid wages prior to that date are outside the scope of the adjudication. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant represented herself at the adjudication hearing and addressed her complaints by way of verbal submission. The complainant stated that she was owed approximately €4,000.00 in respect of unpaid wages from 2023. The complainant stated that her employment ended on 30th August 2024 and her employer had promised that she would be paid all outstanding payments due to her. The respondent paid some payments to the complainant but when payments ceased for a time in November 2024, the complaint was submitted to the WRC. The complainant was informed of the cognisable period of the complaint and was asked to provide calculations in respect of what she was owed for that period. As the respondent had been paying the complainant periodically since September 2024, the complainant was asked to provide information post hearing so that a decision could issue in respect of the money owed to her for the cognisable period of the complaint. Unfortunately, the information requested was not provided by the complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the adjudication hearing and was not represented. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In advance of issuing a decision on the complaint, the complainant was asked to provide calculations at the adjudication hearing. An officer of the WRC also spoke to the complainant on the telephone in the weeks that followed the hearing relating to the information needed. In addition, two emails were issued to the complainant on the 29th May 2025 and 11th June 2025 seeking an update in respect of the outstanding information. There was no response from the complainant. It is regrettable that the complainant did not supply the information required so that an informed decision could be made on her complaint. As it is unclear what is owed to the complainant and as no clarity has been provided in relation to same, I am unable to ascertain what is due to be paid to the complainant and therefore must find that the complaint is not well founded. |
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.
For the reasons stated above, I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 17/06/2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
Unpaid wages, no information provided. |