ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054561
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Oliver Smith | Unilin Insulation |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Jennifer Smith, HR Manager |
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-00066223-001 | 24/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00066223-002 | 24/09/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/03/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
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:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant and two witnesses for the respondent gave their evidence under affirmation. Cross examination was facilitated but not availed of. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that he was off sick following a workplace accident from 18 June 2024 until 7 July 2024. The complainants admitted that he was paid for two weeks wages in accordance with his contract of employment. The complainant stated that he felt that the absence should not have been paid under the sick pay scheme but that he should have been paid as normal for the days he was on certified sick leave arising from an injury that occurred through a workplace accident. The complainant confirmed that he received his full salary for two weeks in accordance with the respondent sick pay scheme. He stated that he should have been allowed to choose whether he was paid sick leave or not. The complainant confirmed that his two numbered complaints referred to the same issue. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that the complainant was paid for two weeks certified sick leave in accordance with its sick pay scheme and that this was in accordance with its statutory and contractual obligations. The respondent submitted that its sick pay scheme exceeds the statutory requirement for sick pay. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Payment of Wages Act defines wages as follows: "wages", in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including— (a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and (b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice: The complainant confirmed that no deduction was made from his wages, he confirmed that he was paid during his absence in accordance with the respondents Sick Leave Scheme and received two weeks wages, in full.
Having considered the arguments presented by both parties, I am satisfied that no wages were deducted from the complainant and that the complaint is not well founded. Accordingly, I find that 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.
Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to the complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded and that the Act has not been contravened. |
Dated: 27th of March 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Payment of Wages – not well founded – no deduction – no contravention |