ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058168
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sibaya Lethukuthula Nxumalo | BGSS Best Guards Security Service |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00070647-001 | 08/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant began his employment with the respondent on January 1st, 2025, and ended on January 19th. He gave evidence on affirmation. He worked for 116 hours for the respondent and was not paid for any of it. His hourly rate was €14.50. He produced evidence in the form of online communications from the respondent on the Zoomshift application indicating his shifts and confirming his employment by the respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. A notice of the hearing was returned to the WRC as undelivered.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
I am firstly entirely satisfied that the respondent was properly notified of the hearing. The address used to notify it was that which appears on its website and the return of the notice and the respondent’s failure to attend are both inexplicable and inexcusable. I find therefore that the respondent has unreasonably refused to attend the hearing and proceed to a decision.
The complainant gave reliable and credible evidence.
He had been given nothing in the way of employment documentation confirming his employment such as a contract or statement of his terms of employment.
However, he produced copies of various online communications confirming his shifts and also linking the application used to the respondent that established to my satisfaction that he had been employed by the respondent.
I have no doubt that he was in the employment of the respondent for the duration covering the complaint.
In the circumstances I also find his evidence given on affirmation that he was not paid to be persuasive, and his complaint is well founded. I order the respondent to pay the complainant €1682.00 in wages due to the complainant |
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 CA-000070647 is well founded and I award the complainant €1682.00 in unpaid wages |
Dated: 21/10/25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Unpaid wages |