PWD2539

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00051943 (CA-00063718-001)

BACKGROUND:

This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Decision made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. 

The appeal was heard by the Labour Court in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.  

The following is the Court’s decision:

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Stephen Clare against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer (made under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”).

The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was not well founded. 

A hearing of the appeal was partially heard on 13 December 2025, however, due to the unavailability of a Court member, the division assigned to hear the appeal ceased to exist. A newly appointed division of the Court was assigned to hear the appeal afresh on 3 October 2025.

For ease, the parties are referred to in this Decision as they were before the Adjudication Officer. Hence, Stephen Clare is referred to as ‘the Complainant’ and his former employer, Manpower Ireland, is referred to as ‘the Respondent’.  

Summary Position of the Complainant

The Complainant worked for the Respondent as a temporary agency worker on a client site. He left the employment of the Respondent in 2014. 

In 2023 the Respondent admitted to underpaying staff when employed on that client site. The Complainant attended a webinar hosted by the Respondent to explain the pay issue and proposed steps to remedy that matter. The Complainant understood that further information would be made available. That did not happen. The lack of transparency in relation to calculations breached the Complainant’s statutory rights.

The Complainant requests that the Court direct the Respondent to provide a full breakdown of back pay calculations and order the Response to repay any further amounts that may be owed to him. 

Summary Position of the Respondent

The Respondent submits that no contravention of the Act occurred within the relevant statutory timeframe for the within complaint.

The Complainant was formally engaged as an agency worker by the Respondent.

In 2023, the Respondent was advised by a former client that agency workers who had worked on their site between 2014 and 2016 were underpaid.  The Complainant was identified as one of the impacted individuals. Once the Respondent became aware of the underpayment they worked with the former client to remedy that matter.  The Respondent engaged with the Complainant to outline how monies due to him would be paid.

On 24 January 2024 the Respondent remedied the matter and sent the Complainant a payslip via email with details of the payment made. The Complainant was paid €5,578.21 gross based on 944 hours. No unlawful deduction was made.

Deliberations

The Complainant, who worked as a temporary agency worker, left the employment of the Respondent in 2014.  The Respondent belatedly identified a shortfall in the Complainant’s pay and remedied that matter with a payment made via the payroll system on 24 January 2024. The Complainant contends that, notwithstanding the fact that the Complainant left the employment of the Respondent in 2014, his complaint under the Act falls within the relevant statutory time limits as he only became aware of the shortfall in his payment when he received a back payment from the Respondent in January 2024, and an email with a payslip which gave a breakdown of the gross and net figures.

To ground a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the Court must first ascertain what wages were properly payable to the Complainant during the relevant period. Having established that the Court then needs to ascertain whether there was a shortfall in the proper payment and, if that was the case, whether the shortfall arose for one of the reasons set out in section 5(1) above.

The Complainant submits that the salary properly payable to him at the relevant time was €94,590. To support that assertion he relies on what he says is publicly available data that the average salary in the client company at the relevant time in 2014 was €94,590.

The starting point for assessing what is properly payable is the Complainant’s contract of employment. In response question from the Court, the Complainant accepted that he had no documentary or other evidence to support an assertion that he was contractually entitled to be paid €94,590 per annum in 2014.

Based on the above, the Complainant has not established that he has a contractual entitlement to the money he claims to be owed. As a result, the Court finds that the Complainant has failed to make out a case in relation to a contravention of the Act.

In light of that fact, the Court finds that there was no unlawful deduction of the Complainant’s wages during the relevant period for the within complaint and the complaint is not well founded.

Decision

The Court finds that the complaint is not well founded.

The Adjudication Officer’s decision is affirmed.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
JNF	______________________
10 November 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms. Julie Nicholl-Flood, Court Secretary.