ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031084
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ruslan Ryback | Noel Hughes of N J Hughes Haulage & Plant Hire |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Marius Marosan | Company Managers |
Complaint:
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-00041368-001 | 02/12/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/01/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Oath / Affirmation was administered to all witnesses present. The legal peril of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
There were no issues with Confidentiality.
The hearing was facilitated by the Remote attendance of the Complainant, currently in the Armed Services of the Ukraine.
This was possible pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
A closely related Adjudication Adj 30213 was also heard simultaneously.
Background:
The issues in contention concern a Driver and a Transport Company. The employment began on the 10th October 2005 and ended on the 3rd June 2020. The rate of pay was stated to have been €10.83 per hour for an alleged 85-hour week. The Complainant alleged that he had not been paid the proper subsistence rate and the correct Public Holiday payments.
|
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant, represented by Mr Marosan, alleged that he was not paid proper Public Holiday pay and was not paid the correct subsistence rates. The Complainant was lacking in detail as to exact dates etc when he was underpaid. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submitted copy pay slips and the effective Administrator, Ms McG, gave extensive Oral evidence, under Oath. The pay slips showed reasonable subsistence being paid. In the absence of details, Ms McG could not comment on any Bank holiday issues other than to state that a sum of €80 was paid as an additional Bank Holiday payment where the Bank Holiday was worked. The Respondent stated that the Complainant’s work history and daily living arrangements were in recent times highly irregular. He was an excellent driver who never refused work. His visits to Ireland were ,in recent years, unaccompanied by any family and he basically “lived to work” often residing for long periods in the sleeping cabin of his Truck to save on rental expenditure. Ms McG, stated under oath, supported by Pay slips that the Complainant was always paid what he was due. No Payment of Wages claim can be sustained here. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
As stated in parallel Adjudication Adj 30213 the Work History of the Complainant was unusual. He came to Ireland for periods an then returned home to the Ukraine. He also worked in the United States for brief periods. In Ireland he lived in his Truck for very extended periods and without any social attachments would work all hours that were available. He was an excellent heavy truck driver and was always welcomed back by the Respondent. It would be a forensic task of extreme complexity to establish exactly his basic rates of pay and additional payments. The Respondent paid him a good wage to keep him. It was clear that he was a very “mobile” worker. On balance and on the basis of reasonable probability the Adjudication finding has to be that, in view of the extraordinary high degree of ambiguity in the case, a Lump sum of €500 be paid to the Complainant in full and final settlement of his claim. |
4: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
CA: 00041368-001
The Complaint is deemed Well Founded.
A Redress sum of €500 is directed to be paid to the Complainant in lieu of Bank Holiday and Public Holiday payments
Dated: 2nd April 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Payment of Wages, Subsistence and Public Holidays |