Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Leticia  Cintra Murari

Kiwisun Ireland Limited

Representatives

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-00069986-001

13/03/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely.  I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

In response to 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), I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice.  I have additionally informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and in the event that there is a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to a complaint then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Oath/Affirmation as appropriate. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The Specific Details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 13th of March 2025. 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 matters presented to me in the course of the two days of hearing. I have noted the respective position of the parties.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that have been presented to me and instead tend to concentrate on the issues which have guided me to the final recommendations being made. In this regard, 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 gave evidence on her own behalf. The Complainant worked in the Respondent salon for less than a month. As the employment did not meet her expectations, the Complainant left after about three and a half weeks of employment. The Complainant fully expected to be paid for all the hours she had worked. The Complainant was not paid for the hours she worked in the week commencing the 18th of November 2024 (17 hours) and the week commencing the 25th of November 2024 (12hours).

The Complainant confirmed that she had been fully paid for her first two weeks of employment which commenced on Monday the 4th of November.

The Complainant gave oral evidence on affirmation setting out her complaint.

The Respondent witness gave evidence on behalf of his business. The witness confirmed that there was money outstanding and stated that he had always intended paying the money owed. He explained that there had been a cashflow situation in December of 2024 but things were, he said, better again.

The Respondent indicated that he would be happy to make staged payments.

By way of preliminary observation, I am satisfied a Contract of Employment existed between the parties such that a wage defined by the 1991 Act was payable to the Employee by the Employer in connection with the employment. I further find that the Complainant’s Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 13th of March 2025 was submitted within the time allowed, the employment having ended in November of 2024.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in this hearing. There can be no doubt that the Respondent has withheld remuneration from the Complainant contrary to Statute and in circumstances where the Complainant was not in a position to easily supplement the shortfall.

Even the fact of waiting until the hearing demonstrates a lack of understanding of the hardship imposed by the Respondent on the Complainant.

I am in the circumstances not willing to direct staged payments. 

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00069986-001     - The complaint herein is well founded and I direct that the Employer does pay to the Employee a sum of €450.00.