ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049853
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Niamh Callanan | Natus Manufacturing Limited |
Representatives | Self-represented | Kevin Feighery IBEC |
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-00053573-001 | 03/11/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/03/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
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.
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 respondent representative attended the hearing and sought an adjournment on the basis that the respondent was not properly on notice of the hearing. The representative noted that he had only been engaged a number of weeks previously and that the person who was instructing him was away on annual leave. The adjudicator took some minutes and ascertained that the respondent had received notice of the case by letter. The hearing notice was also sent out by letter and in the circumstances, the adjudicator concluded that in the circumstances the respondent was on notice of the hearing. Although it was recognised that the representative did not receive instruction in the weeks prior to the hearing, he was satisfied that the respondent had received the appropriate notification at each stage prior to the hearing. In the circumstances the adjudicator preceded with the hearing. However, the respondent’s representative indicated that as he was uninstructed he would withdraw from the hearing. The hearing preceded in the absence of the respondent. The complainant gave her evidence under affirmation. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that she was unemployed with the respondent from August 2017 to August 2022 and her salary as at our date of departure was €32,000 per annum. She submitted that all staff were entitled to a bonus and that this was performance based usually with an annual performance review. The complainant submitted that following the COVID pandemic the respondent had changed the conditions of its bonus, and we're now paying it on a six-monthly basis. In evidence, the complainant stated that when she handed in her notice, her supervisor told her that she was entitled to a bonus. She worked out a notice period of four weeks. She stated that the issue of the bonus payment was never raised during that time nor was it raised at the exit interview that she took part in. She was only informed that she was not going to be paid the bonus after she finished up with the respondent. She was told that this was in accordance with the respondent global procedure on bonus payments. She requested a copy of the global procedure on bonus payments on the 22nd of September but was never provided with any documentation in this regard. At a later stage, she also sought all documentation relating to the e-leap system which also included that relating to bonus payments. This was not forthcoming. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant came across as a credible witness answering clarification questions and providing further information where such was available in response to the adjudicator’s questions and comments. She provided such documentation as was available to her, including her request for a copy of the global procedure on bonus payments which was not responded to. I note that the complainant was only told that she was not entitled to a bonus after she had left and no longer had access to the respondent’s policies on its system. Despite requesting a copy of the policy governing the decision not to award her the bonus, it was not provided by the respondent. This policy would have shown clearly whether or not the complainant was entitled to the bonus. In the circumstances, I am satisfied with the complainants account of her entitlement to a bonus. The complainant provided a copy of her final payslip indicating the amount she received upon resignation. Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented to me I am satisfied that the complainant has established that she was due a bonus payment of €640. Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act contains a definition of wages as including “any fee bonus or commission … whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise”. Accordingly, I find that the complainant has established an entitlement to a bonus payment and an unlawful deduction under the Act. |
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.
Having considered all the written and oral evidence in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complainant has established an entitlement to a bonus payment of €640. Accordingly, I direct that the employer pay the complainant €640 (less any lawful deductions therefrom) which I consider to be reasonable in the circumstances. |
Dated: 12th March 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Payment of Wages – established entitlement to a bonus – established unlawful deduction – compensation awarded |