PWD2630

PW/25/62

DECISION  NO.  PWD2630

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

Chairman:	Ms McGowan
Employer Member:	Mr Marie
Worker Member:	Ms Hannick

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00052840 (CA-00064740-003)

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

The following is the Court's Decision:

DECISION:

1. Appeal Details

This is an appeal by Ms Róisín Bohan against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00052840/CA-000664740-003), dated 4 September 2025, made under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the Act) in a complaint against Core Auction Ventures Limited trading as South Dublin Auction, which concluded that the complaint was not well founded. This appeal is linked to an appeal under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015 (UD/25/73 Decision No. UDD2638) and an appeal under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 to 2014 (TE/25/55 Decision No. TED2620).

For ease, the parties are referred to in the same way as at first instance, so Ms Bohanis referred to as “the Complainant” and Core Auction Ventures Limited trading as South Dublin Auction as “the Respondent”. The Complainant did not attend the hearing before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).

A hearing of the Court was held on 4 August 2026 in Dublin, with the Complainant attending unaccompanied and unrepresented. The Respondent was represented by its Managing Director, Mr Ross Graham. The Court received written submissions in advance of the hearing and heard submissions from both parties at the hearing. The Complainant and Mr Graham gave evidence under oath.

2. Summary Submission and Evidence of the Complainant

The Complainant worked as an administrative assistant for the Respondent, with an annual salary of €28,288, from 27 February 2023 until her dismissal on 15 March 2024.

The Complainant’s submissions did not identify the substance of her claim under the Act and at hearing the Complainant said that she was not advancing her claim under the Act as there were no payments outstanding to her.

3. Summary Submission and Evidence of the Respondent

The Respondent’s position was that the Complainant commenced employment as a part-time administrative assistant on 27 February 2023 but ceased employment on 24 March 2023. She rejoined on 24 April 2023 and her employment terminated on 15 March 2024. The Respondent said that all payments owing to the Complainant had been made to her on the termination of her employment including payment for notice and accrued holiday pay and that any claim under the Act was misconceived.

4. Relevant Legislation

Section 5 of the Act provides that:

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

• the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,
• 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
• in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.

…

(6) Where-

• 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
• none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any 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.”

The interpretation section of the Act (section 1(1)), sets out definitions of “employee”, “employer” and “wages”, the relevant elements of which are set out below.

“Employee” is defined as meaning: “a person who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment and references, in relation to an employer, to an employee shall be construed as references to an employee employed by that employer, …”

Employer, in relation to an employee, means: “the person with whom the employee has entered into or for whom the employee works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment”.

Wages, in relation to an employee, means: “any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including- 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 …”

5. Deliberations

It was not disputed that the Complainant was an employee of the Respondent during the material time albeit there was a dispute as to the period of employment. The Complainant’s evidence was that she was employed by the Respondent from 27 February 2023 until she was dismissed from her employment on 15 March 2024. The Respondent disputed the duration of the Complainant’s employment contending that she had broken her service and only had continuous service from 24 April 2023 to 15 March 2024.

While the Complainant did not formally withdraw her appeal under the Act either before or at the hearing she accepted that no monies were owed to her by the Respondent and she was not advancing her claim in respect of any breach of the Act. The Respondent’s evidence, supported by payslips, demonstrated that the Complainant had been paid for notice and accrued annual leave on termination of her employment.

The Court is satisfied, based on the uncontested evidence of the Respondent and the position adopted by the Complainant, that the Respondent did not breach section 5 of the Act.

6. Decision

As no breach of section 5 of the Act was identified the Court affirms the decision of the Adjudication Officer, dated 4 September 2025, bearing Adjudication Reference No. ADJ-00052840 and Complaint Reference No. CA-00064740-003, which corrected an original decision dated 9 May 2025, which had found the Complainant’s complaint to be not well founded.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Niamh McGowan
CC	______________________
22/10/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.