ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00043660
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Maria Angelica Sandoval Prando | Aplandai Ltd |
Representatives | Peter Glynn SIPTU | Did not attend |
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-00053976-001 | 02/12/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00053976-002 | 02/12/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/07/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The complainant was employed by the respondent from 1st May 2021 until 10th November 2022. The Complainant was employed as Chief Scientific Officer. This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 2nd December 2022.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Background.
The Complainant commenced employment on 01/05/2021 and remained in employment until to 10/11/2022. During the Complainant’s time with the employer, she demonstrated both diligence and professionalism in all the tasks assigned despite the issues of non-payment of wages.
The claimant received an email on 29/07/2022 from her employer stating that the salary would be delayed, as they were in the process of finalising investment for the company.
On the 4th of August the claimant received an email from her employer with work instructions inviting her to search for alternative employments outlining the company was facing funding problems.
On 14th September 2022, the claimant received an email confirming that she only received 75% of her August salary and would be reimbursed when the employer had secured funds. The email further states that they asked their accountant to her current employer to a different employer payroll. While the email states about the august shortfall there is no mention that the claimant should seek financial support from social welfare.
On 20th September 2022, the employer wrote to the claimant citing for her not to engage with the accountant or the directors. The confirm there is the company has no money albeit if you want to find work with another employer that was fine. Appendix 5
On the 3rd November 20022, the complainant’s solicitor wrote to the employer seeking clarity on employment contract and the suggestion that she transfer to Alvarius without confirmation of terms and conditions and would normally apply within a TUPE transfer. Inresponse tothesolicitor,theemployercitedthedifficulties thecompany were havingandagain request that theclaimant terminate her employment and move to thenewcompany. The correspondenceclaimed that would pay a salary asafavour in the newcompany. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing of the complaint. I am satisfied that correspondence in relation to arrangements for the hearing was sent to the registered offices of the respondent on 20th May 2025. |
Findings and Conclusions:
There are two claims contained within the complaint form. The first complaint is submitted under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Complainant is alleging that she was underpaid, she received no payment for the last week in August, all of September and October and 10 days in November 2022. This amounts to a gross payment of approximately €15,675.00. The second complaint is submitted under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.What is not very clear relates to the manner in which the Complainant’s employment was terminated. From reading the emails from the Respondent CEO I’m quite satisfied that the complainant’s employment was terminated without any procedure or process being utilised by the Respondent. I have listened carefully to the Complainant and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I must find that the complaints as presented by the Complainant are well found. In relation to the first complaint under the Payment of Wages Act I now order the Respondent to pay the complainant the gross sum of €15,675.00 representing unpaid wages due to the complainant. Such sum should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision. In relation to the complaint submitted under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed and the complaint is well founded. Following her dismissal, the Complainant was unemployed for a period of 9 months during which she was looking for employment. The Complainant commenced a new employment on 14th August 2023. I now order the Respondent to pay compensation of €56,076.92 to the Complainant, such sum should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision. |
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.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA – 00053976 – 001 The complaint is well founded. I now order the Respondent to pay the complainant the gross sum of €15,675.00 representing unpaid wages due to the complainant. Such sum should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision. CA – 00053976 – 002. The Complaint is well founded. I now order the Respondent to pay compensation of €56,076.92 to the Complainant, such sum should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision.
|
Dated: 18th July 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
Payment of Wages; Unfair Dismissal. |