ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057915
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | James Gouldsbury | Access Security & Control Technology Ltd 2T-Technology |
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-00070292-001 | 26/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
The Complainant has brought 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.
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. Section 5(6) provides that where an employer has paid less to the employee than was properly payable to the employee or, indeed, has paid none of the wages that were properly payable to the employee then the amount of the deficiency shall be treated as a deduction for this Act.
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.
"wages" in the context of the Payment of Wages Act and in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—
(a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and
Background:
This hearing was 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 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.
Pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and where there is potential for a serious and/or direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint, then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered.
The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 26th of March 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was not represented and made his own case by giving an oral account of the facts around his employment. I have additionally been made aware of the Complainant’s claim through the narrative set out in the workplace relations complaint form which reads: On the morning of 24/2/2024 I informed Denis by email that I would be taking vacation time from 07/04/2025 to 11/04/2025. He replied by email and said I would have to change my plans as he was attending a trade show in the UK on those dates and needed me to work the support phone. He arrived into the office shortly afterwards and repeated that I would have to change those plans and that I should I have cleared those dates with him first. He said I would have to change vacation plans and then said, "or best of luck in the new job". I was taken aback by this remark but held my peace and told him that I would check if I could change plans. That same evening, 24/02/2025 Denis pointed to a clause in my contract that said employees should consult with the employer before booking time-off and this was an oversight by me. Several incidents of condescension and berating remarks from the commencement of my employment had, in the previous months, led me to consider my position within the company. Such remarks included but were not confined to, "grow up...", "shut up...", "trying to destroy the company...", being told "I don't like you or Caner (my work colleague)" etc. All of this belittling behaviour caused me great distress and was always spoken to like this in front of work colleagues. I mulled his remarks regarding the vacation over the following days and on Friday evening 28/02/2025 I verbally offered my resignation, and Denis didn't seem too bothered by this. I told him I would send him an email to that effect and he replied, "I wouldn't bother!" Denis eventually asked me to gather my belongings and leave. (I must stress that I had fully intended working out my months notice.) I collected my belongings and as I was leaving said I would expect my months payment in lieu of notice as he was effectively dismissing me. He laughed and said, "Sue me." I left the premises. On 18/03/2025 I sent an email to Denis requesting outstanding payment in lieu of notice and he replied with an email saying that I was not entitled to payment as, according to him, I had significantly breached the terms of my contract by not clearing the aforementioned vacation dates with him. I am also owed 1 days holiday pay. I informed him that I would be lodging a case with the WRC I have the email trail for most of these conversations. The Complainant alleges that his employer has paid less to the Complainant than was properly payable to the Complainant at the end of his employment. Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
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 24th of July - and sent Respondent’s registered Office. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in the course of this hearing. The Complainant came to work as manufacturing technician with the Respondent company in and around July of 2024. Tensions arose between the employer and the employee around an issue of annual leave which was not resolved in-house. Ultimately, the Complainant decided that he was not happy in this place of work. The Complainant gave notice of his intention to leave the job at the end of the four weeks’ notice period. This happened on the 28th of February 2025. I am satisfied that the Contract of employment specifically referenced that a one month notice period would operate after the initial probation period had been passed (clause 9.2 of the Contract of Employment). By operation of law therefore the Complainant was obliged to work for a month or be paid in lieu once he had tendered his resignation. The Complainant ought properly to have been paid for the month after tendering his resignation. The Complainant has also claimed that one day of annual leave was accrued to him at the end of his employment. The Complainant gave evidence that he was on a gross salary of €35, 000.00 per annum. This gave him a monthly salary of €2,916.00 and a daily salary of €134.00.
|
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00070292-001 - The complaint herein is well founded and I direct that the Respondent pay to the Complainant the sum of €3,050.00 |
Dated: 04-11-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words: