Unique Diary Productions Ltd (Represented by McInnes Dunne) v Niall Homan (Represented by Emily — Jane Homan)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 09 July 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 7 JIEC 0904
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO. PWD1826 ADJ-00007256 CA-00011266-002
• Date: 09 July 2018

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PW/17/73

DETERMINATION NO. PWD1826

ADJ-00007256 CA-00011266-002

PARTIES:

Unique Diary Productions Ltd (Represented by McInnes Dunne)

and

Niall Homan (Represented by Emily — Jane Homan)

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Haugh

Employer Member: Ms Doyle

Worker Member: Mr Hall

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

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00007256 CA-00011266-002

BACKGROUND:

2 2. This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision made pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court on 28 March and 3 July 2018 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:

DETERMINATION:

Background to the Appeal

3 This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal brought on behalf of Unique Diary Productions Limited (‘the Respondent’) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00007256/CA-00011266-002, dated 16 November 2017) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (‘the Act’). The Respondent's Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 19 December 2017. Mr Niall Homan (‘the Complainant’) cross-appealed on 22 December 2017. The Adjudication Officer had directed the Respondent to pay Mr Homan (‘the Complainant’) €2,496.29 in compensation for an underpayment of salary in 2016. The Court sat on 28 March 2018 and again on 3 July 2018 to consider the within appeal and a number of related appeals initiated by the Complainant.

4 The Complainant alleges that he was underpaid during the period January to December 2016. He also alleges that the Respondent failed to reimburse him for certain expenses. The Respondent submits that, in fact, the Complainant had been overpaid in 2016 and that the claim in respect of expenses is not a claim that can be properly brought under the Act.

5 At the outset of the hearing the Respondent raised the issue of the time-period encompassed by the complaint under the Act. It was accepted by both Parties that the initial complaint under the Act was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 11 May 2017 and that, therefore, the relevant six-month reference period commenced on 12 November 2016. It was further agreed (without prejudice to any submissions that the Respondent intended to make in defending the Complainant's appeal under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977) that the Complainant had ceased to be an employee of the Respondent...