Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Luis  Eduardo

Funchal Construction 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-00067850-001

03/12/2024

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

CA-00067850-003

03/12/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00067850-004

03/12/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00067850-005

03/12/2024

The Complainant swore an affirmation. A Spanish interpreter was present and swore an affirmation.

Mr Carlos Ferando De Abreu appeared on behalf of the Respondent and swore an affirmation.

The first hearing was adjourned where Mr De Abreu was unable to stay for the remainder of the hearing due to work commitments and was not fully prepared for the hearing. While this would not usually be permitted, there was agreement that all complaints would be scheduled for the same day to avoid repetition of evidence.

On the second hearing date, after waiting a reasonable period of time, there was no appearance by either party. Having reviewed the file there was no correspondence received since the first hearing date.

The Complainant commenced work with the Respondent on 14 July 2024 until 30 September 2024. He stated he came to Ireland to work with the Respondent on 20 June 2024 but waited approximately 25 days to start working. At this stage he was still waiting for his contract of employment.

Between 14 July – 1 August 2024 he earned €1,200 but it was his evidence he expected €2,500 net for 60 hours work.

It was agreed that the Complainant would submit his payslip post hearing, but it was not received.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that he was not paid his wages in the sum of €5,693.90 which were due on 30 September 2024.

It was his evidence he was made redundant from his employment with the Respondent.   

It was the Respondent’s evidence that it was awaiting payment from its client to be in a position to discharge the Complainant’s wages.

It was accepted there was no redundancy process, but it was due to financial difficulties that the Respondent had to cease the Complainant’s employment. This was communicated to the Complainant at a meeting where it was agreed that the Complainant would finish work that week.

It was Mr Abreu’s evidence the Complainant’s rate of pay was €2,500 gross per month in addition to housing and transport.

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00067850-001

The Respondent did not dispute the unpaid wages claimed by the Complainant. However, there was a dispute whether the wages were net or gross. In the absence with the requested payslip, the monthly sum of €2,500 as a gross figure is accepted.

I find the complaint is well founded.

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00067850-003

There was no contract of employment presented by the parties and therefore, it is unclear whether it contained a clause regarding payment in lieu of notice. Consequently, the statutory notice period can only be relied upon which provides a period of one weeks’ notice in light of the short time the Complainant was employed with the Respondent.

In the absence of disputed evidence from the Respondent, I find the complaint is well founded.

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00067850-004

Section 7 of the Redundancy Payment Act 1967 sets out the general right to redundancy payment:

“7.—(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—

(a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

(b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of two years ending on that date.”

The requisite period is defined in Section 7 (5) of the Act:

“(5) In this section “requisite period” means a period of 208 weeks' continuous employment (within the meaning of Schedule 3) of the employee by the employer who dismissed him, laid him off or kept him on short-time, but excluding any period of employment with that employer before the employee had attained the age of 16 years.”

The Complainant was employed from 15 July 2024 until 30 September 2024. Therefore, he does not have the requisite period of service to meet the requirements for a right to redundancy.

For this reason, I disallow the Complainant’s appeal.

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00067850-005

For the reason outlined above regarding the Complainant’s service not meeting the requisite period, I disallow the Complainant’s appeal.

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00067850-001

I find the complaint is well founded.

Section 6 (1) of the Act refers to the redress provision with reference to the Workplace Relations Act 2015:-

“6. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4C or 5 as respects a deduction made by an employer from the wages or tips or gratuities of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding—

(a) the net amount of the wages, or tip or gratuity as the case may be (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that—

(i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or

(ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,

or

(b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.”

On the basis of a weekly wage of €576.92, I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant a total net amount equal to twice the weekly wage of €1,153.84.

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00067850-003

I find the complaint is well founded.

On the basis of a weekly wage of €576.92, I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant a total net amount equal to twice the weekly wage of €1,153.84.

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00067850-004

I disallow the Complainant’s appeal.

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00067850-005

I disallow the Complainant’s appeal.

Payment Wages – Redundancy