ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056083
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ayodele Folami Solarin Amoke | Bgs Security Limited |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00068013-001 | 11/12/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/05/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
On 9 December 2024 the Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, following the referral of the case to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, a hearing was convened on 21 May 2025 in order that I might inquire into the matter and afford the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present any evidence the parties deemed relevant.
The Complainant attended and provided documentation (which I will outline in detail below) to support his position. The Complainant was unrepresented at the hearing.
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing, nor did it provide any written submission to outline its position.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6 April 2021, the Parties were informed in advance that the hearing would normally be in public, testimony under oath or affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required affirmation/oath was administered to the Complainant and the legal perils of committing perjury was explained.
Background:
The Complainant alleged that he was not paid salary for the month of May 2024 and for 1 day worked in June 2024.
The Respondent is a security company. The Respondent did not attend the hearing and did not provide any submission outlining its position in relation to the allegation.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In his complaint form, the Complainant outlined that he had not been paid for work undertaken by him during the month of May 2024 and for 1 day worked in June 2024. He outlined that he did receive a payslip from the Respondent in respect of wages for the month of May 2024 but that the related monies were never made into his bank account. He further outlined that he received a payslip in relation to 1 day worked in June 2024 but that again, the relevant monies were not paid into his bank account. He stated that he had made several attempts to contact the Respondent including sending a number of letters which all remained unanswered.
The Complainant gave evidence at the hearing under general affirmation. He outlined the circumstances giving rise to the instant complaint and he described the impact of this matter on his financial circumstances and on his health. He provided copies of all relevant payslips and an itemised listing from his bank of all transaction from February 2024 to the end of July 2024 to ground his complaint.
The Complainant confirmed that he was owed the amount of €1980.15 for the month of May 2024 and €103.20 for June 2024, totalling €2053.68
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing and did not provide any submission outlining its position in relation to the allegation.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
Although the Complainant was present on the day of the hearing, there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent.
On the day of the hearing the Respondent’s attendance was awaited for in excess of 20 minutes and I allowed 7 days from the day of hearing for the Respondent to make contact with the WRC post hearing to explain it’s absence, before finalising this decision. No contact was made.
I noted that the correspondence containing the arrangements for the hearing was sent by the WRC to the Respondent address provided by the Complainant on his complaint form, that the Respondent had followed up on previous correspondence to that address and that this was the registered address for the Respondent on the CRO.
In the absence of any explanation for the Respondent’s non-attendance, and in the context that I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts were made to inform the said Respondent of the arrangements for the hearing, and in the absence of any alternative evidence being adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is well-founded and that the Complainant is owed the amount of €2053.68 gross in unpaid wages.
|
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
I have found that this complaint is well founded, and that the Complainant is owed the amount of €2053.68 gross in unpaid wages. In these circumstances it is my decision that the Respondent must pay the Complainant the amount of €2053.68 gross and I direct that this amount be paid to the Complainant by the Respondent within 42 days of the date of this decision.
|
Dated: 03rd June 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
|