Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Cillian  Heffernan

John O'Sullivan

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-00067947-001

08/12/2024

The Complainant attended with his father who both gave evidence on Affirmation.

Mr John O’Sullivan gave his evidence on Affirmation.

Both parties provided documentary evidence which was relied upon during the course of the hearing. The parties were invited to cross-examine the witness.

The Complainant worked as a Tractor Driver for the Complainant from 13 May until 25 May 2024. It was agreed that he would be paid a net hourly rate of €12. He was not furnished with a contract of employment.

He was paid for the first week of work. However, he was not paid for the 76.50 hours worked from 20 – 25 May 2024. The total net pay due was €918.

In response to the Respondent’s submission that the complaint was filed with the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) outside of the 6 month period prescribed by the Workplace Relations Act 2015, he submitted that he was out of the country working during this period.

Mr O’Sullivan raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was referred to the WRC outside of the prescribed time limit.

It was his evidence, that the Complainant sent a text message to him on Sunday, 26 May 2024 advising he no longer wished to continue in his employment. By reply, Mr O’Sullivan stated he must work a weeks’ notice as standard. However, the Complainant did not work the weeks’ notice and it was for this reason he was not paid for the week of 20 – 25 May.

The first consideration is whether the complaint’s referred to the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) within the time frame provide for in Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

Section 41 (6) provides: -

“(6) 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 relates.”

The period of time may be extended to 12 months where the Complainant can demonstrate reasonable cause.

The Complainant stated that he was due to be paid on 25 May 2024. The Complaint Form was received by the WRC on 8 December 2024.

Having considered the undisputed evidence that the Complainant was working outside the jurisdiction during this period, the absence of any prejudice demonstrated by the Respondent, and the short delay of 13 days, I find there is reasonable cause to extend time pursuant to Section 41(8) of the 2015 Act.

There was no dispute that the Complainant worked the hours stated and earned the net sum of €913 from 20–25 May 2024. While the Respondent submitted that he did not give one week’s notice, it is noted that there was no contract of employment in place outlining a notice period. This has been considered in light of the Complainant’s submission that, as he was employed for less than 13 weeks, he was not obliged to give a week’s notice pursuant to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973–2005.

Consequently, I find the complaint to be well founded.

For the reasons set out above, I find the complaint is well founded.

In terms of redress, Section 6 provides: -

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”

Accordingly, I award the Complainant compensation in the sum of €913 (the net amount).