PWD2612

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00056911 (CA-00069221-001)

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:

1. Background

The matter before the Court is an appeal by Good Place Beauty Limited against a decision of an Adjudication Officer in a complaint made by a former employee, Joselyn Moreira, under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (the Act).

Good Place Beauty Limited did not attend the hearing at first instance. The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was well founded and awarded the sum of €7,700.

A Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 25 October 2025.

A hearing of the Labour Court was held on 16 April 2026.  Joselyn Moreira was assisted at the hearing by a Spanish language interpreter and gave evidence under oath.Luis Fellipe Do Couto Teixeira gave evidence on behalf of the company. Both sides confirmed that they were given an opportunity to present all relevant evidence to the Court at the hearing.

This Decision is linked to TED2611 which was heard on the same day.

The parties are referred to in this decision as they were at first instance. Hence, Joselyn Moreirais referred to as “the Complainant” and Good Place Beauty Limitedis referred to as “the Respondent”.

2. Summary position of the Complainant

The Complainant commenced employment as a beauty therapist with the Respondent on 9 November 2024. The Complainant was paid monthly. She left the employment on 3 January 2025, as she was not paid her proper wages.

The Complainant agreed an hourly rate of pay of €15.00 per hour at the outset of her employment via WhatsApp. She subsequently agreed a higher rate of pay of €18.00 per hour for carrying out certain treatments (specifically deep tissue massage and facial cleansing).

The Complainant worked on average 48 hours per week. She worked eight hours a day from Monday to Friday (from 1.00pm to 9.00pm). On Saturdays, the Complainant worked from 8.00am or 9.00am until 9.00pm or 10.00pm. Customers regularly paid tips electronically. These tips were not distributed to employees. The Complainant kept a record of her hours worked on her phone. Her phone was stolen, which she reported to A Garda Siochana on 18 January 2025.

In November 2024, the Complainant’s payslip indicates that she worked “52 hours@€15.00”and was paid €780.00 (gross) or €561.60 (net). The Complainant estimates that she worked 149 hours in November, so should have been paid €1,912.00

In December 2024, the Complainant payslip indicates that she worked “65 hours@€15.00” for which she was paid €975.00 (gross) together with €12.36 in “tips” and €75.00 in “xmas commission “. In total, she was paid €1062.50 (gross) or €552.43 (net). The Complainant estimates that she worked 188 hours in December 2024, so should have been paid €2,589.00.

The Respondent contravened the Act as the Complainant was not paid the wages that were due to her in November and December 2024.

3. Summary position of the Respondent

No contravention of the Act occurred within the relevant statutory timeframe for the within complaint.

All employees within the business are paid at a rate of €15 per hour. A formal written contract was not issued to the Complainant at the outset of the working relationship; however, the terms of engagement were clearly communicated to her and were consistently applied, including the €15.00 hourly rate of pay.

The Complainant’s working hours were flexible and based on scheduled shifts, as agreed between both parties. Her working hours depended on the number of client bookings for each day. All payments to the Complainant were made in accordance with the hours worked.

The Respondent maintained records of scheduled shifts on the company system. All payments, bookings, and tips are recorded on the central system, which ensures transparency and consistency for all staff. Payments made are based on actual hours worked, as recorded in the system, and are processed through payroll, with payslips provided.

Tips are discretionary payments and are not guaranteed or contractual earnings. All tips within the business are recorded through the system at the time of payment. The individual system records show €12.36 in tips recorded under the Complainant’s activity.

There was no deliberate withholding of wages. Any claim suggesting fixed or higher working hours than those recorded is not supported by the documented evidence. The alleged outstanding payments include estimated working hours and earnings not agreed between the parties. These figures do not correspond with the hours recorded in the system or reflect actual payments made. All payments made to the Complainant are supported by system records, payslips and bank transfers.

Payments were processed through the payroll system. During part of her employment, the Complainant was subject to emergency tax, as she had not completed the required registration with Revenue. The Respondent provided guidance to the Complainant on completing her Revenue registration. The Complainant did not complete the registration within the relevant period. Any higher tax deductions were due to her registration status and not due to any action or withholding by the Respondent.

4. The Applicable Law

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides in part as follows:

“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, and

(b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice:

Provided however that the following payments shall not be regarded as wages for the purposes of this definition:

(i) any payment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment,

(ii) any payment by way of a pension, allowance or gratuity in connection with the death, or the retirement or resignation from his employment, of the employee or as compensation for loss of office,

(iii) any payment referable to the employee's redundancy,

(iv) any payment to the employee otherwise than in his capacity as an employee,

(v) any payment in kind or benefit in kind.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides in part as follows:

 (1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless–

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.

(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,

then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

5. Deliberations

To ground a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 the Court needs in the first instance to ascertain what wages are properly payable during the relevant period. Having established that, the Court then must 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.

In Balans v Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] 31 E.L.R. 125 MacGrath J. held that “[T]he first matter which should be addressed by the Labour Court is to determine what wages are properly payable under the contract.” Accordingly, the starting point for assessing what is properly payable is the Complainant’s contract of employment.

The wages properly payable to the Complainant during the relevant period are disputed.  It is accepted that the Complainant did not receive a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment. Her evidence was that she agreed an hourly rate of €15.00 per hour before commencing employment and, at some later date, agreed a rate of €18.00 per hour for certain treatments. Mr Do Couto Teixeira’s evidence, on behalf of the Respondent, was that all employees were paid €15:00 per hour, as reflected on the company system and the Complainant’s payslips.

Mr Do Couto Teixeira told the Court that the Complainant had access to the company computer system when she checked clients in and out for their treatments, and that it was open to her to amend her hours as recorded on the system if they were incorrectly recorded. The Court preferred the Complainant’s testimony, in that regard. She said that she was unable to access or amend the system, as she was a non-English speaker at that time.

The Complainant accepted, under cross examination, that she sent a message to Mr Do Couto Teixeira’s on 10 December 2024 about the wages due to her in November 2024, in which she states that her hourly rate of pay was €15.00. The Complainant accepted that she completed an employee registration form in December 2024, in which she further stated that her hourly rate of pay was €15.00.

On balance, having regard to the evidence tendered, the Court finds that the Complainant was entitled to a rate of pay of €15.00 per hour during the relevant period for her complaint.

Having established the Complainant’s rate of pay, the Court must next establish what hours the Complainant worked to determine what was properly payable to her in the relevant period.

The Complainant’s evidence was that she could not say with certainty how many hours that she worked in November 2024, as the phone which she used to record her hours was stolen. She estimated that she worked a total of 149 hours in November 2024.

A translation of the WhatsApp message from the Complainant to Mr Do Couto Teixeira on 10 December 2024 was provided to the Court and stated as follows:

“…I am sending you my details of the days worked.

The system shows 39.9 hours total. Adding €15 by 5 hours per day for three times a week = €75 per day. 75 x 8 days that I worked in November = 600.

Plus (5) hours during the week, plus (4) of a Saturday that I didn't stop, total overtime 9 hours = €135.

So 600 + 135 = 735. And we subtract what you paid me yesterday 561.60.

They would be pending 173.4.

I'm not going to charge you for the tips that my clients left for you and they paid by card. I have them noted down anyway, but it doesn't matter… “

The message states that the Complainant is due payment for 49 hours worked in November, based on working 8 days (at 5 hours per day) with an additional 9 hours overtime. In the message the Complainant states that the total payment due to her for November 2024 is €735.

Having regard to the evidence presented to the Court, the Court finds that the hours worked by the Complainant in November 2024, are the 49 hours as stated by her in the WhatsApp message to the Respondent. Accordingly, the Court finds that the amount properly payable to the Complainant in November 2024 was €735.00 (calculated based on 49 hours worked at €15.00 per hour).

The Complainant’s payslip for November 2024 records that she was paid €780.00 (gross) - based on 52 hours of work at €15.00 per hour.The gross payment made to the Complainant in November 2024 is slightly more than the payment sought by the Complainant in her message of 10 December 2024.

Considering the evidence tendered, the Court finds that the Complainant has not made out a case that she suffered a shortfall in the wages properly payable to her in November 2024. Accordingly, the Court finds that aspect of her complaint under the Act must fail.

The Court notes that the Complainant was subject to emergency tax in November 2024 and received a net payment of €561.60.  The Court’s jurisdiction is solely confined to determining if there was a breach of the Payment of Wages Act. Where an overpayment of tax is made, that matter can be pursued directly by an employee with the Revenue Commissioners.

The Complainant submits that she suffered a further shortfall in the wages properly payable to her in December 2024.

The Complainant estimates that she worked a total of 188 hours in December 2024. That evidence was refuted by the Respondent. It submits that the wages properly payable to the Complainant in December 2024 were calculated based on her actual hours worked, as recorded on the company system and processed through payroll.

The Complainant’s payslip for December 2024 indicates that she worked “65 hours@€15.00” for which she was paid €975.00 (gross) plus €12.36 in “tips” and €75.00 in “xmas commission “. In total, she was paid €1062.50 (gross). The Complainant was again subject to emergency tax in December 2024 and received a net payment of €561.60.

The Court notes that the Complainants alleged shortfall in wages are based on an estimation of the hours she worked in December 2024. Aside from her sworn testimony, the Complainant was unable to provide the Court with any other corroborating evidence to support her assertion that she worked in and around 188 hours in December 2024. Having regard to the evidence tendered, the Court finds that on balance of probabilities she worked 65 hours in December 2024.

Having regard to the above, the Court finds that the Complainant has not made out a case that she suffered a shortfall in the wages properly payable to her in December 2024. Accordingly, the Court finds that aspect of her complaint under the Act must fail.

For the reasons outlined above, 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.

6. Decision

The Court finds that the complaint is not well founded.

The Adjudication Officer’s decision is set aside.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
JNF	______________________
06/05/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

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