ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055067
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Anastasia Macagni | Paddywagon Ltd |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives | Self-Represented | Mr Frank Nyhan Frank Nyhan & Associates Solicitors |
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-00067038-001 | 30/10/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/02/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following 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. The hearing was conducted in person in Lansdowne House.
While the parties are named in the Decision, I will refer to Ms Anastasia as “the Complainant” and to Paddywagon Ltd as “the Respondent”.
I explained the procedural changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. An Adjudication Officer, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 in April 2021. No application was made that the hearing be heard other than in public. The parties agreed to proceed in the knowledge that a decision issuing from the WRC would disclose his identities. The Complainant gave her evidence on oath.
The Complainant attended the hearing and she presented as a litigant in person. The Respondent’s legal representative did not attend. The Respondent was represented by Ms Donna Conroy Accounts and Mr Ruairi McKeown Transport Manager.
I am satisfied that a contract of employment existed between the parties such that a wage as defined by the 1991 Act was payable to the Complainant by the Respondent in connection with the employment. The Complainant’s Workplace Relations Commission Complaint Form dated 30/10/2024 was submitted within the permissible statutory time limits.
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute. I can confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into this complaint.
No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.
The Complainant confirmed at close of hearing that he had received a fair hearing of her complaint and that she was satisfied she had been provided with the opportunity to say everything she wished to say.
Background:
This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 29/08/2024. The Complainant alleges contravention by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statute in relation to her employment with the Respondent. The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 28/02/2025.
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Tour Guide at all material times. The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent on 29/08/2024. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00067038-001 pursuant to section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (“the 1991 Act”). The Complainant submits on her WRC complaint form that there was an unlawful deduction from her wages of €1500.00 on a date unspecified. The Complainant submits at hearing that this amount should now be revised to payment for annual leave accrued during the course of her employment as monies owed have now been discharged apart from annual leave accrued.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00067038-001 The Respondent conceded the Complainant had not been paid accrued annual leave payment as she still remained on their books as an employee and had been on lay off as provided for in her contract of employment due to the seasonal nature of her work with the Respondent. The Respondent undertook to pay the Complainant on the basis of their calculation of the number of days worked by the Complainant and conceded that the Complainant was owed €85.00.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00067038-001 In the case of Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 the High Court made it clear that the WRC, when considering a complaint under the 1991 Act, must first establish the wages which were properly payable to the employee on the occasion before considering whether a deduction had been made. If it is established that a deduction within the meaning of the Act had been made, the WRC would then consider whether that deduction was lawful. Therefore, the question to be decided is whether the wages claimed by the Complainant were properly payable. It was not in dispute between the parties that the Complainant had not been paid for annual leave accrued during her employment with the Respondent. I am satisfied these were wages “properly payable” to the Complainant. Accordingly, I find this element of the complaint to be well-founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant in the sum of €85.00 net if not already paid.
|
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.
CA-00067038-001 I decide this complaint in part to be well-founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €85.00 net if not already paid.
|
Dated: 12-03-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Key Words:
Annual leave accrued; |