ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055780
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Rocio Martinez Serantes | Leafwell Limited Le Petite Perroquet |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Self Represented | Did not attend and was not represented |
Complaint(s):
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-00067940-001 | 07/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00067940-002 | 07/12/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/05/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The hearing was originally set to be heard remotely on the 18th of February 2025. Due to the non-attendance of the respondent and some technical difficulties I adjourned the hearing to allow the Respondent more time to attend and for the hearing to be heard in person. The second hearing was held on the The hearing was attended by the Complainant and an interpreter Ms Pinar. Ms Pinar took the interpreter affirmation, and the Complainant took an affirmation to be truthful with the Commission. It emerged in the hearing that the payment under CA-0067940-001 (€441.00) was paid by the Respondent after referring her complaint to the Commission. The second complaint has not been paid under CA-0067940-002 (€182.88) and thus the first complaint was withdrawn. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant worked for the Respondent for 4 weeks and was not paid for the first 2 weeks despite enquiring. She was dismissed without explanation and continued to try and recoup her earnings. Despite numerous promises she was not paid. It emerged in the hearing that the payment under CA-0067940-001 (€441.00) was paid by the Respondent after referring her complaint to the Commission. The second complaint has not been paid under CA-0067940-002 (€182.88) and thus the first complaint was withdrawn and only the second was not being pursued. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend to contest the claim. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Respondent was under notice of the hearing with the notice being sent to their registered address. The Respondent did not contest the claims and without the Complainant’s claim being disputed by the Respondent I can only find the claim well-founded for the sum of €182.88. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find that the complaint is well founded and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €182.88 |
Dated: 06-06-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
Key Words:
|