ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057347
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Andrew Moore | DPI Print and Image Limited t/a digital print and image |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00069658-001 | 28/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/07/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015, made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered during the course of the hearing.
The Complainant has brought a 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. 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.
By way of preliminary observation, I am satisfied a Contract of Employment existed between the parties such that a wage defined by the 1991 Act was payable to the Employee by the Employer in connection with the employment. I further find that the Complainant’s Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 28th of February 2025 was submitted within the time allowed.
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.
In line with the coming into effect of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 on the 29th of July 2021, I can confirm that the witnesses herein were required to give their evidence on oath or affirmation. This was done in anticipation of the fact that there may have been a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to the complaint. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.
The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 28th of February 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date. The complaint concerns the alleged failure by the Respondent to fully discharge all the remunerative entitlements due to the Complainant on the departure from the place of employment.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which read: Employer under paid last payslip by €259.68 , without any explanation or reason why. On 06.02.25 handed in notice and agreed 28.02.25 would be last day as pay done on monthly basis and it been a small company. On 20.02.25 I went out on sick for the remainder of my notice period . (Have a sick cert if needs). Supplied cert to employer on 24.02.25. I Processed Feb payroll as per employer request on 18.02.25. (Dont know why he wanted it done early, Had concerns about letting me go earlier) I Ran payroll for myself for hours worked and outstanding hol hours from 01.02.25 to 18.02.25. Also there was no effort from employer to pay anything towards my sick days even with supply a sick cert. (This concerns me ) I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. The Evidence adduced by the complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent Representative. The Complainant alleges that there was a shortfall in his final wages. 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 entity was represented by a Director of the company (PF). The said Director gave evidence on behalf of the company. All evidence was heard following an Affirmation. The Respondent witness was challenged as appropriate by the Complainant. The Respondent accepts that there has been an underpayment but asserts there was no clarity around the Complainant’s expectations. 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. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by both parties herein. The Complainant worked as a bookkeeper with the Respondent company. This is a small enterprise comprising only three people including the Complainant. The Complainant ran the payroll. The Complainant was paid a basic rate per hour and only worked two days a week. The employment commenced in February of 2024. The Complainant tendered his resignation in early February 2025. He and the Director (PF) agreed that the Complainant would work out a notice period up to the end of the month of February. The Complainant ran payroll on Thursday the 18th of February which was due to be paid on the 28th of February. I note that the Complainant included all annual leave and bank holiday entitlements which accrued to him at the end of his employment. The Complainant was owed €864.00 gross or €859.00 net up to this time. The Complainant was still due to work one more 2-day period commencing Monday the 24th of February. Unfortunately, the Complainant became sick and was unable to attend for his last two days of work. The Complainant did provide a sick cert week at that time. It should be noted that employees who have been in continuous service for thirteen weeks and more may avail of a Statutory right to a payment from the Employer where the Employee has been absent by reason of a certified sick leave. The medical certificate must state that the employee is unfit to work due to their illness or injury. The sick pay will be paid by the employer at a rate of 70% of the employee’s wage, subject to a daily maximum threshold of €110.00. I am therefore satisfied that the Complainant was entitled to sick pay for the two days he missed in his final week of work. The Complainant was entitled to 70% of €270.00 which amounts to €189.00. On leaving his place of employment the Complainant was therefore entitled to receive the sum of €1,048.00. The Complainant received €600.00.
|
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 seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00069658-001 - The complaint herein is well founded and I direct that the employer does pay the sum of €448.00 to the Complainant forthwith.
|
Dated: 5th of September 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|