ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035923
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ramona Treacy | Pink Beauty Emporium Ltd Edvard And Pink / The Salon And Spa Company |
Representatives | Did not attend | Sinead Finnerty, Peninsula |
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-00047122-001 | 11/11/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/09/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
The hearing was scheduled for 22/09/2022. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant.
I am satisfied that the complainant was issued with a letter by e mail on 22/07/2022 advising her of the date, time and venue of the hearing. The e-mail was the sent to the one provided by the complainant and which she used for all correspondence with the WRC.
In order to exercise a significant amount of caution I allowed a period of time to elapse before bringing the hearing to a close. There was no further communication received from or on behalf of the complainant to indicate why she did not attend. The complainant was previously granted a postponement, so I am satisfied that she was familiar with the WRC postponement process.
The respondent along with its representative and witnesses attended the hearing.
Background:
The complainant was employed by the respondent for a just over 8 weeks. On her complaint form she submits that she was “not paid for holidays, for a bank holiday and received no commission”. She believes that she is due €300.00 in relation to these days. The respondent submits that the complainant was paid in line with the remuneration clause in her contract of employment and there was no evidence submitted by the complainant to identify any unlawful deductions under the Act. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
On her complaint form she submits that she was “not paid for holidays, for a bank holiday and received no commission”. She believes that she is due €300.00 in relation to these days. The complainant did not attend the hearing to provide any evidence in relation to this complaint. There was no communication received from or on behalf of the complainant either prior to or after the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent’s representative and witnesses attended the hearing. They were prepared to give evidence in defence of the complaint on behalf of the respondent and in accordance with their written submissions and accompanying documentation submitted on its behalf. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing to pursue the complaint and/or give evidence in relation to this complaint I conclude that the complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I am satisfied that the complainant was properly notified of the hearing arrangements. I find that her non-attendance at the hearing, without any notification, to pursue this complaint to be unreasonable. In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the complainant seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 I find this complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 10th October 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Payment of wages. No attendance. |