Food Court Event Catering (Represented by Peninsula Business Services) v Mr Dean O'Keeffe (Represented by IWU / Independent Workers Union)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 21 January 2022
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2022] 1 JIEC 2103
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION ADJ-00028226, CA-00036239-001 DETERMINATION NO. PWD2210
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

PARTIES:

Food Court Event Catering (Represented by Peninsula Business Services)

and

Mr Dean O'Keeffe (Represented by IWU / Independent Workers Union)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PW/21/44

ADJ-00028226, CA-00036239-001

DETERMINATION NO. PWD2210

Labour Court

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Haugh

Employer Member: Mr Marie

Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S)

BACKGROUND:

2 2. This is an appeal on behalf of Food Court Event Catering (‘the Respondent’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00028226, dated 26 July 2021) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (‘the 1991 Act’). The Respondent's Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 26 August 2021. The Court heard the appeal in a virtual courtroom on 12 January 2022.

DETERMINATION:

The Factual Matrix:

3 The Parties are ad idem in relation to the material facts relevant to this appeal. They can be recited succinctly as follows. Mr Dean O'Keeffe (‘the Complainant’) was employed by the Respondent as a ‘chef de partie’ from 16 August 2018 until his dismissal on 10 July 2019.

4 The Complainant did not have sufficient service with the Respondent to challenge his dismissal by way of a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. He did, however, refer a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Adjudication Officer to whom the matter was assigned held in the Complainant's favour and recommended that he receive compensation of €6,000.00 in the light of her finding that the procedures adopted by the Respondent in effecting the Complainant's dismissal did not reflect best practice. (Recommendation ADJ-00023653, dated 23 March 2020, refers.)

5 The Respondent was not represented at the section 13 hearing and did not implement the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation. When the six-week period during which the Respondent could have appealed that Recommendation had passed, the Complainant – through his Trade Union – referred the within complaint under the 1991 Act to the Workplace Relations Commission. The Complainant formulated his complaint as follows:

“I had a Dispute with my Employer which I referred to WRC (sic). My complaint was heard on 5 December 2019. The Adjudicator, Ms Patsy Doyle awarded me €6,000 in her decision (sic) which was dated 23 March 2020. Neither I or (sic) my Employer appealed the award. Through my Trade Union I asked my Employer to pay this money. I have received no response and I now believe that I am lawfully owed this emolument. I am referring the issue for a decision under the Payment of Wages Act.”

The Claim:

6 The nub of the case being advanced by the Complainant in these proceedings can be stated in the following way. The 1991 Act prohibits any unlawful deductions by an employer from wages (as defined in the Act) that are properly payable to an employee. Failure to pay such wages or any part thereof is deemed to be an unlawful deduction and is, therefore, equally impermissible under the Act. The relevant paragraph of the definition of wages in section 1 of the Act provides:

“‘wages’, in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—

(a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise ….”

7 The Complainant then asserts that a recommendation of an award of compensation (such as that made by the Adjudication Officer in favour of the Complainant in...