Serghei Groppa, T/A Humdinger's (Represented by BDM Boylan Solicitors) v Vitali Saveljev

 
FREE EXCERPT

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PW/17/43

DETERMINATION NO.PWD187

ADJ-00007092 CA-00009422-003

PARTIES:
Serghei Groppa, T/A Humdinger's (Represented by BDM Boylan Solicitors)
and
Vitali Saveljev
SUBJECT:
1

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00007092 CA-00009422-003

BACKGROUND:
2

2. A Company appealed the decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 on 11 August 2017. A Labour Court Hearing took place on 14 February 2018. The following is the Court's Determination.

DETERMINATION:
Background to the Appeal
3

This is an appeal to the Court against a decision of an Adjudication Officer in which three complaints referred by Mr Saveljev (‘the Complainant’) were held to be well-founded. The complaints were referred respectively under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 and the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The decision bears the reference number ADJ-00007092 (CA-00009422-002; CA-00009422-001; CA-00009422-003). The Adjudication Officer's decision is dated 11 July 2017. The Complainant's employer's Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 11 August 2017. The Court sat to hear the appeals in Waterford on 14 February 2018.

Appellant's Locus Standi
4

The appeals are brought in the name of Quick Service Rest System Limited (‘the Company’), a limited company of which Mr Groppa is a director. Mr Groppa did not appear before the Adjudication Officer nor was the Company represented at that hearing. It is clear from the written submissions received by the Court that Mr Groppa – who was the named Respondent in those proceedings – was properly notified of them. However, he submits that he was unavailable to attend on the day because of a last-minute emergency at his business premises.

5

Mr Groppa did not, at any stage prior to the hearing before the Adjudication Officer, raise an issue with the Workplace Relations Commission as to the identity of the Respondent which should have been named in the proceedings. However, the Notice of Appeal received by the Court names the Company as the Appellant in the within proceedings. The written submissions made to the Court by the Appellant's Solicitors in support of the appeal are substantially predicated on the claim that Mr Groppa was...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL