Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Elena  Bykova

Websoft Consultants Ltd

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00061078-001

18/01/2024

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 19th of September 2023. In general terms I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.

At the completion of the hearing, I did take the time to carefully review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. I have noted the respective position of the parties.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of all the evidence and submissions that I have considered. Any matter not specifically addressed is deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”. 

The Complainant was not represented and made her own case The Complainant relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form.  I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case which arrived on the 9th of October 2024, though other documents arrived at different times.

The Complainant alleges she was entitled to accrued annual leave.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent did not attend on the second day of hearing. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 11th of December 2024 - and posted to the address provided and from which address the Respondent had previously responded to correspondence.

The Respondent had attended an earlier date of hearing in a related case and had provided oral evidence on that date.

Despite his non-attendance at the hearing, I had the benefit of the Respondent’s submission on the file and this Submission had been sent in between the first and second day of hearing to the WRC – on the 19th of November 2024. Points raised by the Respondent therein were systematically put to the Complainant in the course of the hearing.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced over the course of two days.

I am satisfied that the Complainant came to be Employed by the Respondent company from in and around September of 2021. The Complainant seems to have worked remotely and was available to the Respondent – in the person of the Managing Director – as and when required. There appears to have been initial irregularities in terms of the Complainant’s Revenue and Tax compliance, but DF did sort these out such that by early 2022 the Complainant’s financial affairs were in order.

The Complainant worked through 2022 and well into 2023. The Complainant denies the periods of absenteeism suggested by the Respondent witness DF.

Things had slowed down in the workplace in the summer of 2023, but alarm bells only started ringing for the Complainant when she was forced at the end of July or beginning of August 2023 to ask about her remuneration which had become payable at the end of the July. FD was not in a position to pay her. He suggested she find some new clients to assist. The Complainant says she spent two weeks then looking for new clients but that by the time she had secured new work she discovered that her work permit had expired and that her Employer was refusing to assist secure a new one. The Employer had now allowed six weeks to pass making no payment to the Complainant.

The Complainant said that she was also entitled to her accrued annual leave at the time that the Employment came to an end. This she said was 38 days. The Complainant did indicate that she had taken some time off though was not specific as to what that might have been. In the circumstances I am inclined to compensate in a just and equitable manner.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00061078-001  The Complaint herein is well founded and I require that the Respondent does pay to the Complainant a sum of €5,000.00 which is just and equitable in the circumstances.