Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Nathan  Collins

Nical Engineering Limited

Representatives

Hugh Hegarty                                              Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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-00068204-001

18/12/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely.  I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

In response to 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), I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice.  I have additionally informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and in the event that there is a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to a complaint then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Oath/Affirmation as appropriate. 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 8th of December 2024. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.

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. I was provided with some additional documentation which I had requested at the end of the first day of hearing. The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which read as follows:

The company won't pay me for hours worked. They also said they will be making deductions to the wage, I never consented to any deductions and didn't sign their contract. 

I'm not sure if the amount I've entered is right because I haven't been given my payslip due to the deductions they plan on making.

They are aware I've complained and an inspector was talking to them. They told him they would pay me once they got keys they had already received. Then claimed they got the keys on the 17/12/24 and it cost them money because of the wait. Originally, they told me the work van was damaged and smelled bad and they were waiting to get a price back to deduct it from my wages. The van had no damage or bad smells. They also told Gardaí I stole the van. I have a number for the Sargent involved who organised for the van to be taken and keys to be picked up. The van was also never stolen.

If you need anymore information to make things easier you can call or email.

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.

The Complainant alleges that he is owed wages for his final two weeks of work.

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. The Complainant must establish facts which tend to disclose that there is a reasonable cause of action or that there appears to have been a contravention of a Statute or Statutes.

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. 

The Respondent was represented by Peninsula Business Services Ireland. I have additionally heard from a number of witnesses for the Respondent including the Director and an accounts Clerk. All evidence was heard following an Affirmation. The Respondent witnesses were questioned by the Complainant.

The Respondent accepts that the Complainant is owed wages and has at all times offered the Complainant to come and collect his wages at their head office.

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.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in the course of this hearing.

The Respondent company engaged the Complainant as a refrigeration engineer and the employment relationship commenced on or about the 29th of August 2024. Th Complainant worked for two weeks – ten working days.

As I understand it KM, the Office Accountant, in head office was responsible for emailing engineers every evening to direct where they should attend the next day. I understand that the complainant lived in Galway which meant he had quite a long commute before ever reaching the midland clients that the Respondent was catering to. He very quickly seems to have formed the view that this was not the job for him.

I don’t quite understand how things turned as rancorous as they did and as quickly as they did, but I am satisfied that the Complainant did not turn in for work on the third week (starting Monday the 16th of September) and this was a decision taken by him without notice to either the Director JM, or KM.

I am satisfied that KM, who gave evidence, tried to track the Complainant down and was told on either the Tuesday or the Wednesday that he had no plans to return.

It is common case that the wages were paid two weeks in hand. This meant the complainant was due to be paid for the weeks he worked on or about the 20th of September 2024. It I also common case that the Complainant was not paid on this date despite the fact that the Respondent had the Bank Account details and were aware that money in the amount of €1,650.00 was owed.

I have quite a lot of sympathy for the Respondent who were given the run around by the complainant who quite simply refused to engage with the Respondent for the purpose of returning a company van that had been provide to him as part of his job specification.

It is wholly unacceptable that the Complainant caused the Respondent to have to engage the Gardai to oversee the lifting of their own vehicle from the front of the Complainant’s premises. This seems to me to be an unacceptable waste of gardai resources for which the Complainant is solely responsible.

It is not, however, permissible to withhold wages in the manner that the Respondent has done, and I am directing that the Respondent does pay to the Complainant the money that has been withheld. As noted, the non-payment of wages that are properly payable on a given occasion shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on that occasion (per Section 5(6)).

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

CA-00068204-001 – the complaint herein is well founded, and I direct that the Respondent does pay to the Complainant an amount of €1,650.00.