ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026827
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Wladyslaw Walkowiak | Hubert Stroschein Cm Windows |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00034415-001 | 04/02/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/08/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
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:
The complainant was employed by the respondent between February 23rd, 2019 and September 11th 2019. He claims that he is owed outstanding wages. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant says that he is owed approximately €2,000 in unpaid wages in the period July August 2019.
His wages were €565.50 per week. On one occasion he was paid only €2000, leaving him some €356 short.
This was followed by three weeks in which he was not paid at all.
This brings his claim for payment of wages to €2060.00. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent was represented by Hubert Stroschein who stated that the company, CM Windows was owned by his son, who had now returned to Poland that that it was ‘bankrupt’.
He said the company was not limited and that he had no responsibility for its debts. He could not recall whether the complainant had even been employed during the time for which the unpaid wages were being claimed, and other details about the company, including the numbers employed by it.
Neither could he confirm whether the wages alleged to be outstanding were due. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant gave credible evidence of the non-payment of wages.
On the other hand, the respondent was evasive and lacked credibility; variously describing himself as managing director of the company, but when pressed later for detail on aspects of the complainant’s employment saying he was only a foreman.
His credibility was further undermined by the alleged inability to recall whether the complainant had even been employed during the time for which the unpaid wages were being claimed, and other details about the company, including the numbers employed by it.
Neither could he confirm whether the alleged outstanding wages were due.
I am satisfied on the basis of the complainant’s own evidence that he had been employed by the company and that the wages claimed are properly due to him. |
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.
Complaint CA-00034415-001 is well founded and I award the complainant wages in the amount of €2060.00. |
Dated:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Non-payment of wages. |