ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053304
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | James Cregan | Perigon Construction Management Ltd |
Complaints:
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-00065114-001 | 30/07/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00065114-002 | 30/07/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00065114-004 | 30/07/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/12/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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 Complainant gave evidence on affirmation.
Peter Igoe and Padraig Carroll of the Respondent both gave evidence on affirmation.
Submissions were received by both parties and considered.
Both parties were afforded the opportunity to cross examine.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Worker was a Project Manager with the Employer from 17 January 2022 until he resigned from his employment on 31 May 2023. CA-00065114-001 – Payment of Wages It was the Complainant’s evidence that he was paid less than the amount due to him in the sum of €19,725.99 which was due on 31 October 2023. The Complainant gave evidence that this sum was broken down into mileage expenses for travel he undertook from his home to the construction sites he was required to attend. It was his evidence he was advised he would get a company vehicle and when this did not transpire, he requested an allowance for using his own vehicle. Documentary evidence of emails and calculations were relied upon by the Complainant. CA-00065114-002 – Payment of Wages It was the Complainant’s evidence that he was due notice in the sum of €1,040.09 where he was not made for his one week’s notice period. CA-00065114-004 – Minimum Notice The Complainant referred a complaint under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973 stating he did not receive his statutory minimum period of notice. It was his evidence that he was told by the Respondent on a Tuesday that his job would be terminated on the following Thursday. It was his complaint that he was not given the one week’s statutory notice period. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00065114-001 – Payment of Wages, CA-00065114-002 – Payment of Wages and CA-00065114-004 – Minimum Notice The Respondent acknowledged there had been “shortcomings and learnings in relation to the delayed payment” to the Complainant. The Respondent also raised an objection on the basis the Complainant referred his complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission outside of the 6 month time period provided for in Section |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00065114-001 – Payment of Wages Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (as amended) sets out the time limit for the referral of a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission for consideration. Section 41 (6) states:- “(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.” It is further noted that Section 1 of Payment of Wages Act 1991 expressly excludes expenses under the definition of wages. The Complainant’s evidence was the payment of expenses was due on 31 October 2023 however the spreadsheet supplied detailed expenses for January – August 2022. The complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 31 July 2024 which is significantly outside the 6-month period provided for in Section 41 (6). On that basis where I do not have jurisdiction in this complaint, I find the complaint is not well founded. CA-00065114-002 – Payment of Wages For the same reasons as outlined above, I find the complaint is not well founded. CA-00065114-004 – Minimum Notice Section 41 (6) also applies to the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 also. The evidence presented was the Complainant’s last day of employment was 30 April 2023 which again falls outside the 6 month period provided for in Section 41 (6). I find the Act was not contravened. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00065114-001 – Payment of Wages I find the complaint is not well founded. CA-00065114-002 – Payment of Wages I find the complaint is not well founded. CA-00065114-004 – Minimum Notice I find the Act was not contravened. |
Dated: 27-03-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Jurisdiction |