ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056640
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Kevin Jose Cruz Urbina | Crystal Valet |
Representatives | Self-represented | Self-represented |
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-00068917-001 | 29/01/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/06/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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.
The parties were put on notice of the ruling under Zalewski 2021 that the matter would be heard in public unless there were sufficient reasons to do otherwise; no reasons were put forth, and the parties were also advised of the right to cross-examine witnesses. No cross exam took place.
After being informed of the penalties for providing false or misleading information to the Workplace Relations the following were put under affirmation, Mr Urbina, Mr Melly and Ms Romera (interpreter).
There was an attempt to submit additional documents post hearing, as I had not invited any documents, I refused to review these, and the parties were advised accordingly.
Background:
The Complainant started work as a car cleaner with the Respondent on the 14th of November 2024 and the employment ended on the 7th of December 2024. The respondent did not provide details of his salary on the complaint form.
On the 29th of January 2025, the Complainant submitted his complaint under s6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 to the Commission, within the six-month time limit under the Act |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant started working for Crystal Valet at Dublin Airport on November 14th, 2024, and sets out they worked 50 hours per week. During this time, he never received a payslip and was not paid with the Respondent telling him he had no bank account, and this was required, and they would hold his payment until this was established and had his PPS number. This arrangement continued until the Complainant was dismissed without notice on the 20th of December 2024. Attempts to contact the Respondent for payment were fruitless whereupon he lodged his complaint (CA-00068917). The Complainant elaborated this in his submission to the Commission and described an abusive workplace and negative physical and emotional impact on him and additional financial distress. It has forced him to abandon his English studies. The Complainant kept notes of his working time and is claiming this amounts to €1,714.50 The Complainant further sets out that they have sent numerous Whatsapps and numerous other methods to resolve the mater He now suffers from insomnia stress anxiety and depression as a result and has accumulated a debt of €3500. He also sets out that he has suffered skin damage from the chemical in the workplace.
The Complainant requested compensation in terms of €8,500 for: 1. Unpaid wages (€1,714.50) 2. Emotional distress and mental health impact 3. Physical damage and health impact from working conditions 4. Five months of unpaid of wages and lack of resolution 5. Debt incurred and the burden of repaying it to my family 6. Employers repeated evasive behaviour, intimidation, and attempts to silence him |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent made a response to the complaint in the following terms. The date of commencement of employment is disputed as the 16th of November 2024 whereupon it transpired, he had no PPS number which they requested from the Complainant. The Respondent sets out that they had issues with his attendance and performance in terms of 11 days late in 19 workdays which contradicts the hours claimed by the Complainant and the Complainant acknowledges being late in Whatsapp messages. The Respondent provided evidence of the Complainant lateness referred to in Whatsapps on the 15th of November and a text of the 14th of November sets out the start time on the first day. On the 16th he called in sick and ay Whatsapp showed him to be late again on the 17th of November and again late on the 18th of November. He was late again on the 19th of November and this continued on. The Respondent sets out that he acknowledged to the Complainant there was payment due on the basis of hours actually worked by the Complainant to a total of 110.5 hours. The Respondent attempted to contact the Complainant on 10/12/24 to resolve the issues and of persistent lateness and absence. The Complainant was late for this meeting by two hours at which point the Respondent had left for a city centre meeting. The next communication from the Complainant was notifying him of the WRC complaint. The Respondent again asked to meet the Complainant urgently to resolve this issue and make sure he was paid for what he worked, and the Complainant was unwilling to meet. The Respondent requested the Complainant confirm his IBAN on the 3rd and 5th of April which was refused on the basis of what compensation the WRC might award the Complainant. The Respondent adds he sought the help of the WRC in contacting the Complainant for bank details. The Respondent describes a person of inconsistency and unreliability in the Complainant. However, the claim is for the payment of wages properly due. The Respondent accepts that the Complainant is due 110.5 hours pay and to his credit has been attempting to make good on this payment and the Complainant has not cooperated in resolving the issue preferring to take the matter to the WRC. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The hearing started 20 minutes late due to the Complainant’s late attendance for reasons which were never explained. It is clear to me that the Respondent has attempted to make good on the payment that he sets out in his evidence that he owed the Complainant, and the Complainant has not cooperated in that matter preferring instead to make an application for further compensation and considerable reliefs not available under the Payment of Wages Act. Amongst these are: 1. Unpaid wages (€1,714.50) 2. Emotional distress and mental health impact 3. Physical damage and health impact from working conditions 4. Five months of unpaid wait and lack of resolution 5. Debt incurred and the burden of repaying it to my family 6. Employers repeated evasive behaviour, intimidation, and attempts to silence him Aside from the unpaid wages of €1714.50 the rest sought are not available. Damages for emotional distress are not covered by the Act, nor any damages arising from working conditions and economic loss. It is also clear that there were attempts to gain the Complainant IBAN number to make payment on the 3rd of April and again on the 5th of April where the Complainant preferred to receive the outcome of the WRC hearing with the possibility of compensation. There was also other evidence provided by the Respondent of attempts to elicit the help of a WRC Inspector to make the payment, where the Inspector quite rightly declined to assist. There was also evidence provided of missed meetings by the Complainant with the Respondent to resolve the matter where he arrived late. It is quite clear from the evidence that the Complainant was not an employee to be relied upon, and it is also clear that the Respondent has failed to deal with basic matters of employment law and good practice HR in terms of recording working hours, issuing core terms of employment information and other matters. However, the claim brought is on the payment of wages and only that which is properly payable can be awarded. The lack of accurate records is unsettling and though there is demonstrated attempts to resolve the matter on the terms set out by the Respondent, the lack of records weakens his position and I must find that in their absence the figure of €1714.50 is the amount that falls to be properly paid in the absence of correct records where timesheets that the Respondent told the hearing he normally kept, but not in this case, would have offered a chance to rebut the claim of the Complainant. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the reasons set out above the Complainant claim for €1714.50 (gross) in unpaid wages is well founded and direct the Respondent to make the payment to the Complainant |
Dated: 21/07/25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
Key Words:
Lack of employment records, unwarranted claims for compensation |