Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Roman  Jurisa

Marble City Bar& Tea Room

Representatives

N/A

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-00068717-002

20/01/2025

The Complainant commenced employment on 10 October 2024 as a Chef and was paid €760 per week. He stated that the remuneration he received did not reflect the rate originally agreed with the Respondent. He further claimed that he was not paid for all hours actually worked and that, following the termination of his employment, he did not receive the outstanding holiday pay to which he was entitled.

The Complainant stated that he worked a total of 360 hours over the course of his employment, for which he was paid €5,724. This equates to an hourly rate of approximately €15.90. The Complainant further asserted that the agreed hourly rate was €19, and that on this basis the correct payment for 360 hours would have been €6,840, leaving an underpayment of €1,116.

The Complainant further stated that there were an additional 27 hours worked which were not included in the Respondent’s calculations. At the agreed rate of €19 per hour, this amounts to €513. He also stated that he did not receive payment for two weeks of annual leave owing to him. Calculated on the basis of 80 hours at €19 per hour, he stated that this amounts to €1,520.

Based on the above, the Complainant stated that the total amount outstanding is €3,149, comprising €1,116 in underpaid hours, €513 in unpaid additional hours, and €1,520 in unpaid holiday pay.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant was paid for all of the hours he worked and that he was in fact overpaid because, according to their clock-in machine, he did not work for the full duration of all of his scheduled shifts. The Respondent acknowledged that there was a shortfall in holiday pay in the amount of 23 hours owed to the Complainant.

Preliminary Matter:

Although the Complainant listed the employer as “Marble City Bar & Tea Room” on the complaint form, I have reviewed the payslips he provided to the WRC. These payslips clearly identify Langton Marble City Ltd as the employing entity. On that basis, I am satisfied that this was his employer throughout, and that he ought to have been aware of that fact.

A similar matter came before the Labour Court in Lawlor’s Hotel and Deborah McMahon (HSD2514). In that decision, the Court held that the complainant:

“…was on notice at all times that her employer was Burke Hotels Limited as stated .. on her payslips. This oversight on the Complainant’s part is not something that the Court has any statutory basis to rectify.”

I find that the circumstances in the present case are similar to those in Lawlor’s Hotel and Deborah McMahon. The Complainant’s own payslips name Langton Marble City Limited, and accordingly I am satisfied that this was the correct employer at all material times. Following the reasoning of the Labour Court, I am further satisfied that the Complainant knew, or reasonably ought to have known, the proper legal name of his employer.

I also note that the WRC’s published guidance notes on the adjudication and investigation of complaints—which are freely available to all prospective complainants—state:

“The Complaint Form should be carefully filled out, correctly completing all relevant sections including the correct name and address of the employer/respondent. It is vital to ensure the correct legal name of the employer/respondent is entered on the Complaint Form.”

Taking all of the above into account, I find that I cannot amend or substitute the name of the impleaded Respondent in this complaint. In those circumstances, I have no option but to decline jurisdiction in respect of this complaint.

I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint for the reasons set out above.