ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00055287

Parties:

Complaints:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  24/02/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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.  The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. 

Background:

The Complainant submitted complaints under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The claimant submits that he is a qualified carpenter and holds a National Craft Card for Wood Manufacturing and Finishing. He was employed by Phelan Woodcraft Limited trading as Phelan Woodcraft under a contract of employment commencing on the 17th of January 2024. His job description was that of CabinetMaker. The contract provided by his Employer sets out his renumeration as €19 gross per hour to be paid weekly in arrears by way of Bank Transfer. The gross pay was €741 with net pay working out at €616.48 based on a 39 hour week. Contract refers to 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week. The claimant finished working for the respondent on the 24th of June 2024.

EMPLOYMENT ISSUES

Further to the complaints lodged on the 11th of November 2024. Payslips were not provided for period 9 and period 26. There were certain periods where wages were not paid sometimes at all or there was a shortfall or delay with same. The sum of €768.08 as per period 16 payslip was due to be paid by the end of April 2024 and remains outstanding. In respect of payslip 19 it states pay was €609.64 but only the sum of €600 was paid into claimant’s bank account leaving a shortfall of €9.64. Payslip 24 was paid late leaving a full month between pay cheques for the claimant. Payment in respect of payslip 25 for €554.92 dated the 23/06/2024 remains due and owing to the claimant. No payslip was ever given for period 26. Payslip 27 in respect of holiday pay totalling €874.29 dated the 07/07/2024 also remains due and owing to the claimant. The amount due in respect of discrepancies from payslips due to non-payment and underpayment totals €2,206.93. These figures can be crosschecked against the current account statements of the claimant.

All payments from the Employer are clearly referenced as Phelan Woodcraft thereon. Payslips were provided for period 25 and 27 but no payment was made to the claimant in respect of same.

It is also believed that the employer did not pay the claimant the correct rate of pay in contravention of the Sectoral Employment Order (Construction Sector) 2021. As a craftsperson he was entitled to the hourly rate of €21.09 but was only paid €19 per hour when he was paid.

In addition to this under the aforementioned Sectoral Employment Order every employer employing workers to whom the Order applies must have in place a pension scheme that provides pension benefits for each employee covered in the Order. The rate applicable at the time of the claimant’s employment was an Employer daily rate of €5.84 or €29.22 weekly. No pension scheme payments were made on behalf of the claimant by the Employer during the course of this employment. This can be evidenced by payslips exhibited herewith. In respect of this underpayment the number of hours at the incorrect rate amount to 982.5 equating to €2,053.42 gross. The claimant was required to work on various sites, business premises, houses approximately 90% of the time the other time was spent making cabinets in the workshop. He travelled around the country undertaking this work.

EMPLOYER’S CONDUCT

When payment was requested excuses were made by the employer for not providing same. The claimant had become accustomed to payments reaching his account late. When the subject was broached by him the Director made him feel uncomfortable and that he was complaining. After repeated requests by phone a letter was sent on behalf of the complainant by Mike Kelly, a management consultant of Hashira Limited on the 28th of September 2024, requesting that Mr. Phelan on behalf of the company settle the matter and do right by the claimant. No response was furnished. The claimant had called to the premises of the Employer asking for payment telling the director that he was there to collect the money due to him. He was told by the Director, Ollie Phelan, that he didn’t have it. When asked when he would have it the response received was ‘no idea when I would have it. I’m paying off Revenue’. Comments were then made to him about the quality of his workmanship and he was told that he had ‘some neck’ saying he had lost money on jobs as the claimant’s work had to be redone. At no stage during the employment was any indication given to him regarding dissatisfaction with his workmanship and the comments made to him are taken as an attempt by the Employer to bully him into not pursuing his claim for money due to him. The claimant also felt that the employer was trying to tarnish his name and try to shift the responsibility and manufacture false accusations about him and his work. He feared these false claims might affect his reputation as a quality craftsman in his home county as slights against him could spread quickly through the construction trade in the local community. The claimant was provided with a work van as he had to travel to various different sites to carry out his work. The claimant admits that he did not return the van on the day he finished work with the employer and did not do so until he was asked to. This was for a very short period of time. It is also believed that the employer did not pay the claimant the correct rate of pay in contravention of the Sectoral Employment Order (Construction Sector) 2021. As a craftsperson he was entitled to the hourly rate of €21.09 but was only paid €19 per hour when he was paid.

In addition to this under the aforementioned Sectoral Employment Order every employer employing workers to whom the Order applies must have in place a pension scheme that provides pension benefits for each employee covered in the Order. The rate applicable at the time of the claimant’s employment was an Employer daily rate of €5.84 or €29.22 weekly. No pension scheme payments were made on behalf of the claimant by the Employer during the course of this employment. This can be evidenced by payslips exhibited herewith. The claimant was required to work on various sites, business premises, houses approximately 90% of the time the other time was spent making cabinets in the workshop. He travelled around the country undertaking this work.

CONCLUSION

The claimant respectfully requests that the Commission finds in his favour and orders that he is entitled to succeed on the facts. He seeks payment of the wages withheld from the Employer and compensation in respect of this non-payment. He also seeks payment of holiday entitlements also withheld and for compensation to be awarded in respect of the employer’s failure to provide same at the end of the employment despite issuing a payslip indicating it was being paid. The ordeal has caused great stress to the claimant and his family. It placed him and his family under great financial pressure and he had to leave the employment and seek alternative employment as he could not deal with the lack of security regarding regular payments when he had bills and loans to pay. The Employer by failing to engage directly with the claimant has also caused more expense by way of legal fees that the claimant has had to bear in order to find a resolution.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent was notified of the complaints by letter dated 14th November 2024 to the address provided by the Complainant which is the registered address for the business.   Notification of the remote hearing was sent to the Respondent by letter dated 7th January 2025.   Subsequent correspondence addressed to the Respondent was returned marked “gone away” and the Respondent did not attend the hearing convened to consider the complaints.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00067314-001           Payment of Wages Act 1991

The complaint here is that the Respondent withheld wages lawfully payable to the Complainant in the amount of €2,206.93. 

Section 5 governs the circumstances in which deductions may be made from an employee’s wages such as statutory deductions (tax, PRSI) or where the contract provides.

Section 5 (6) of the Act states:

In this instant case, wages in the amount of €2,206.93 properly payable were not paid.  As I have been provided with no information to the contrary I find the complaint to be well founded.

CA-00067314-003           Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The complaint here is that the Respondent failed to pay the Complainant the amount due for annual leave accrued at the end of his employment. 

Section 23 (1) (a) of the Act states:

As I have been provided with no information to the contrary, I find the complaint to be well founded.   

CA-00067314-004           Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015

The complaint here is that the Respondent contravened the Sectoral Employment Order (SEO) for the Construction Sector in operation under Statutory Instrument S.I.598/2021 which provided for the basic hourly rate of pay for Craftspersons as €21.09 per hour.  I note the contract of employment and the information provided by the Complainant that his hourly rate was €19 per hour, leaving a shortfall of €2.09 for each hour worked.  Based on the information provided I find the complaint to be well founded.

CA-00067314-006           Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The complaint here is a duplicate of CA-00067314-003.  I find the complaint to be well founded and I make no further award.

CA-00067314-007           Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015

The complaint here is that the Respondent contravened the provisions of the SEO and S.I. 598/2021 in respect of pensions.  The S.I. states:

“Every employer employing workers to whom the Order applies must have in place a pension scheme that provides pension benefits for each employee covered in the Order”.

Based on the information provided, I find the complaint to be well founded.

CA-00067314-008           Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015

The complaint here is that the employee was not made aware of his entitlements and was not paid the correct rate and not given the pension entitlements as provided in the SEO for the Construction sector.  I find this complaint is duplicated in CA-00067314-004 and CA-00067314-007.  The complaint is well founded and no further award is directed.        

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

CA-00067314-001           Payment of Wages Act 1991

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the Act.

Based on the findings and reasons outlined above, I have decided that the complaint is well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €2,206.93.

CA-00067314-003           Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the Act.

Based on the findings and reasons outlined above, I have decided that the complaint is well founded.

As provided for in Section 27 (3) (c), I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €500 compensation for breach of the Complainant’s entitlements under the Act.

CA-00067314-004           Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015

Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the redress provisions of the Act.

Based on the findings and reasons outlined above, I have decided that the complaint is well founded.    In accordance with Section 23 (2) (c) I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €2,053.42 compensation.

CA-00067314-006           Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The complaint here is a duplicate of CA-00067314-003.  I make no further award.

CA-00067314-007           Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015

Based on the findings and reasons outlined above, I have decided that the complaint is well founded and in accordance with Section 23 (2) (c) I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €550 compensation.

CA-00067314-008           Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015

Based on the findings and reasons outlined above I have decided that the complaint is well founded and no further award is directed.

Dated:   2nd May 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: