ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003072
Complaints for Resolution:
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-00004307-001 | 09/05/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00004307-002 | 09/05/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00004307-003 | 09/05/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/10/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) 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.
Attendance at Hearing:
By | Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | A Brand Sales Consultant | A Sales Company |
Background
The Complainant was employed from 3rd March 2016 to 19th March 2016. He was paid €9.15 per hour based on a 36 hour week. He has claimed that he was not paid for the hours worked; He did not get minimum notice and was not paid holiday pay.
1) Organisation of Working Time Act CA-00004307-003
The Complainant advised the hearing that all complaints were being taken under the Payment of Wages Act.
2) Payment of Wages Act CA-00004307-001/002
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
A) Hours of work
He stated that he had a contract of employment for 36 hours per week. He worked 42.5 hours the first week and 41.5 hours for the second week. He had to travel over 100km from his base and this was not recognised. He did not receive any payment for this. He has claimed €146.40 for the additional hours.
He undertook 14 hours of training and as not paid. He has claimed €128.10. He denied that he signed a waiver for these hours.
B) Minimum Notice
He was dismissed without notice and was not paid in lieu of notice. He has claimed €329.40.
c) Holiday pay
He was never paid for holidays.
He has claimed €71.74
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation
a)Hours of work
The Respondent stated that he had a contract for 36 hours per week. He was paid €329.40 on both weeks worked. If additional hours are worked it must first be approved by management. He was aware of this and did not seek approval. The travel varies and there were days when he finished very close to his base. It balanced itself out. Therefore he is not entitled to any extras hours.
He signed a waiver that the training hours would not be paid if he left the employment early. He only worked for two weeks and he had no right to payment. This part of the claim rejected.
b)Minimum notice
They stated that an examination of records show that minimum notice was not paid. They are willing to pay that amount.
c) Holiday pay
He was paid 8% of hours worked which came to 6 hours. He was paid €54.90 and showed a payslip in support.
This claim is rejected.
Findings
I find that in order to succeed with a claim under the Payment of Wages Act you must establish a contractual entitlement to the monies claimed.
A) Hours of work
The Complainant provided no evidence of having got approval from management for working additional hours or for payment. I find that this part of the claim fails.
He signed a contract that provided for training in the first 4 weeks of employment. It stated, “Please be advised that these four or five days of your training are unpaid. However following the successful completion of your first month we will be glad to reward you with a training bonus, which is equivalent to 4 or 5 days of payment for the training itself”.
I note that he denied ever signing that document however he was unable to prove otherwise.
I note that he did not complete 4 weeks of employment.
I note the conflict of evidence, so on the balance of probability I find that he was not entitled to the amount claimed.
I saw no evidence of an entitlement to payment based on the distance travelled from base.
I find no basis for this part of the claim.
B) Minimum Notice
I note the Respondent’s willingness to pay a week’s pay in lieu of notice amounting to €329.40.
c) Holiday pay
I note the evidence that the Respondent paid 8% of hours worked and so he received 6 hours pay as demonstrated by the payslip. This part of the claim fails.
Decision:
Section 41(4) 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.
I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €329.40 within six weeks of the date below.
Eugene Hanly
Adjudication Officer
Dated: 12th December 2016