ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048512

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Alexandre Veiga	Broadex Logistics

Representatives

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-00059763-001	02/11/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/04/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

The Complainant has brought a complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 and where such a complaint is presented the Director General is empowered to refer that complaint forward for adjudication by an Adjudication Officer pursuant to Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. Following the said referral,it is incumbent on the assigned Adjudicator to make all relevant enquiries into the complaint. This will include hearing oral evidence, considering submissions made and receiving other relevant evidence.

Following said referral, I can confirm that I was ready to fulfil my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. I have additionally and where appropriate made time to hear the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and to take account of any evidence to be tendered during the course of the hearing.

In particular, the Complainant herein has referred the following complaint:

A complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.

Background:

This hearing was to be 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 to be 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.

Had evidence been given it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came intoeffecton the 29th of July 2021, and which said legislation accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence.

The Complaint herein was brought to the attention of the WRC on the 2nd of November 2023 by way of a workplace relations complaint form

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 11th of February 2025 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means when filling out his complaint form.

From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant seeks to establish that he had had €500.00 unlawfully deducted from his earnings.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend. 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 February 2025.

I note that a Director of the Respondent Company did communicate with the WRC after that notification was sent. I understand that the Respondent intended defending the within complaint and was asserting that eh complainant was not and never had been an Employee of the Respondent Company

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant did not attend and did not provide evidence substantiating the claim made.

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.

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

CA-00059763-001 - The complaint herein is not well founded and fails in circumstances where the Complainant has provided no evidence.

Dated: 21st May 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Key Words: