Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kevin  Keogh

Irish Modern Auctions Ltd

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-00069541-001

25/02/2025

The complainant submits that he is owed monies from the respondent.

Preliminary Issue 1:

The complainant agreed to the respondent’s name change.

Preliminary Issue 2:

The complainant submitted that delays in submitting his complaint was owing to a refusal by the respondent to pay him the monies.  His evidence was that he had been misled by him when he had been refused the monies and it was when a friend told him he might be entitled that he sent in his complaint to the WRC.

Substantive Issue:

The complainant commenced employment on 17/10/2023 and his employment ended on 25/04/2024 when he resigned and his complaint was received on 25/02/2025.  His gross monthly pay was €2,532.40 and he submits that he is owed €1,000 gross.  The complainant submitted he was involved in the sale of 5 properties and did not receive commission when he expected on 29/04/2024.  He was told he was not entitled to it despite his contract suggesting otherwise.  He enquired further into it on 11/02/2025 and was again told he was not entitled to it.

The complainant’s evidence was that his job was to sell property and engage with agents to get property.  The commission is dependent on how much it is sold for.  Once vendor accepts the purchase offer a deposit is taken and it is held by the respondent and a contract is signed.  There were 5 properties sold and after six months he arranged a call and due to stress he decided to leave.  The complainant said he was leaving on 25/04/2024.

The respondent did not cross examine the complainant on his evidence.

Preliminary Issue 1:

Mr Folan submitted that the registered name of the respondent was Irish Modern Auctions Ltd and requested that the respondent’s name be changed from Iamsold which is the trading name.

Preliminary Issue 2:

Mr Folan made no submission regarding whether the complaint was out of time.

Substantive Issue:

Mr Folan gave evidence that he wished the complainant well at the time that he left and there was no negative feelings and that most of the properties that the complainant was involved in were taken on by someone else  and he did not believe that the complainant had any entitlement to this money as he left the respondent without appropriate notice.  He submitted that his contract outlines that he would not be entitled to commission under such circumstances. Case law cited included Bord Gáis Energy Ltd –v– Thomas and submitted that the complainant was not employed on the payment date.

The complainant did not cross examinate Mr Folan on his evidence.

Preliminary Issue 1:

The respondent requested that the name of the respondent be amended to Irish Modern Auctions Ltd instead of Iamsold and there was no objection from the complainant and I note that neither parties were prejudiced by same I have amended the respondent’s name.

Preliminary Issue 2:

The complainant submits that he was owed €1,000 which should have been paid when his employment ended on 25/04/2024 and the respondent submits that this is not monies properly payable.  I note that the complaint was received by the WRC on 25/02/2025 and the complainant left his employment on 25/04/2024.  The cognisable period is therefore 26/08/2024 to 25/02/2025. 

Section 41(6) sets out:

Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relate.

Section 41(8) outlines

An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause

.

The complainant submitted that he had been told he was not entitled to the monies and then after a period of time he enquired further and believed he was in fact entitled to the monies.   I find in all the circumstances that the complainant could have submitted his complaint earlier and no reasonable cause was presented by the complainant to extend the six month period. I find that the complaint was presented outside of the statutory time limits and I find therefore, the complaint is unfounded and I dismiss the complaint.

I find, the complaint is unfounded and I dismiss the complaint.

Payment of wages, commission