ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012163
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A sales and marketing executive | A yoga business |
Representatives | Barry Crushell Solicitor, Aperture Partners |
|
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-00016144-001 | 05/12/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/03/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, this complaint was assigned to by the Director General. On March 16th 2018, I conducted a hearing and inquired into the complaint, giving the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
The complainant was represented by his solicitor. The respondent, although properly on notice of the hearing, did not attend.
Background:
The complainant was employed as a sales and marketing executive from October 9th until October 28th 2017, when his employment was terminated by text message from the owner of the business. Apart from his grievance regarding his dismissal, his complaint is that he was not paid any wages for the three weeks that he worked. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Having applied for a job with the respondent, the complainant participated in what he described as a rigorous, two-hour group interview, followed by an interview with a recruitment consultant, and finally, a meeting with the owner of the company. At the hearing, he said that he left a permanent, well-paid job to take up the position with the respondent. He was interested in the business and he felt that his skills were a good match and that he would make a positive contribution to the respondent’s company. He agreed to a salary of €32,000, plus a bonus based on sales. After he started, he said that the owner told him that he was looking for ways to pay his salary and he asked him about the possibility of crowd-funding for his (the complainant’s) wages. The complainant had experience of setting up crowd-funding websites in his previous role, but he responded that he didn’t think it was appropriate to try to raise money this way to pay his salary. The complainant said that he didn’t get any training, but despite this, he got stuck in to the work and started putting together marketing plans. He said that he did promotions for new classes which were filled and worked on a detailed 12-month sales plan. On October 23rd, a formal marketing strategy meeting took place at which the complaint presented his plans to develop the business. The next day, the owner told the complainant that he “wasn’t working out,” but retracted this the following day. On Saturday, October 28th, however, while he was at work making sales calls, the complainant received the following text message from the owner: “…I’m really sorry but I can’t employ you at (name of company). Your skill set with digital marketing is not adequate for the role we require. Myself and (name of assistant) do not have the time or resources to upskill you right now. We are a small business that operates leanly, and need to focus our energies on current operations and upcoming projects. Please do not take this personally and I wish you the best going forward. If you send me your bank details I can compensate you for the three weeks so far.” The complainant asked his solicitor to contact the respondent, but the solicitor got no reply and he has not been paid for the three weeks that he worked from October 9th to 28th 2017. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As this complainant had just three weeks of service with his former employer, I can make no finding with regard to the fairness or otherwise of his dismissal, the manner in which he was dismissed or the fact that he received no notice of his dismissal. From the evidence presented at the hearing, and from the contents of the text message itself, payment of three weeks’ wages is due to the complainant, plus payment for holidays accrued up to the last day of his employment, and for the public holiday which fell on October 30th. |
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 respondent is to pay the complainant the following: Wages for three weeks: €615 x 3 = €1,845 Two days’ pay in respect of holidays and the public holiday on October 30th: €266 Total amount to be paid to the complainant: €2,111 |
Dated: 2nd May 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Non-payment of wages |