ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054518
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Badaru Issah | Best Guard Security Service BGSS |
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-00066452-001 | 03/10/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/05/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the attendees 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 was administered to all present. The legal peril of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
No issue regarding confidentiality arose
Background:
The Respondent did not attend or offer any reason for their failure. I awaited the customary fifteen minutes to allow for an appearance and none came. I also waited a further 7 days to issue my decision to allow for any reasonable excuse to be offered for non-attendance. The issue in contention concerns the Complainant who was employed as a Security Guard by the Respondent from 17/08/2024 to 05/09/2024 and that arrears of wages were not paid amounting to €1600.00 gross. I heard the sworn evidence of the Complainant, and they provided documentation to substantiate their claim. The Complainant had provided the Commission with a payslip to the amount of €1258.42 gross and had not at the time of hearing provided the second payslip. The Complainant was given 7 days from the date of hearing to provide this which he duly did on the 6th of May, but this document was illegible. He was further requested to provide a legible version within five days which he duly did and provided the second payslip totalling €406.45 gross |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant set out that the amount of €16658.87 gross wasproperly payable to him and not paid in contravention of the Act, the Complainant seeks a decision of the Adjudicator to make the sum payable. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and offered no documentation or explanation. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having heard the sworn evidence of the Complainant with no contradictory evidence from the Respondent I have to conclude the complaint is well founded under s6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Complainant has demonstrated that they were due to be properly paid the amount on payslip 1 of €1248.42 gross and on payslip 2 €406.45 gross totalling €16658.87 gross. Having allowed a reasonable amount of time for the provision of further documents I have concluded that the Complainant was not paid properly and is due the amount of€16658.87 gross. |
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.
The Complaint is deemed well founded. Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991 it is directed that the sum of €16658.87 gross be paid to the Complainant withing 6 weeks of the publication of this Adjudication decision. |
Dated: 4th June 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
Key Words:
BGS, non-attendance |