Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Shaila  Pineda

Wayback Mary Sreet Limited

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00066959-002

25/10/2024

The Complainant was employed by the respondent from 6th of November 2023 until the 25th of August 2024.    She submitted a claim to the WRC on 25TH of October 2024 under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 .

The complainant submits that she was owed €465.45 in unpaid wages in respect of the week of 12th to 18th of August 2024. The complainant submits that she was also owed €39.15 in respect of a shortfall in pay for a bank holiday at the start of August.  The complainant also submits that she was owed a further amount of €676.91 in respect of 53.30 hours of holiday pay which she had not received.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing to give evidence. I am satisfied that they were on notice of the hearing.

Redress is provided for under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 :-

“6. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4C or 5 as respects a deduction made by an employer from the wages or tips or gratuities of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding—

(a) the net amount of the wages, or tip or gratuity as the case may be (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that—

(i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or

(ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,

or

(b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.”

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”) defines wages as:

“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,”

In Marek Balans -v- Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 approving Dunnes Stores (Cornels court) Limited -v- Lacey [2007] 1 1.R. 478, it was stated a decision-maker must firstly determine what wages are properly payable under the employment contract before determining whether there has been a deduction under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.  While each case will turn on its own particular facts, it is necessary to ascertain, in the instant case, (1) whether the pay constituted a term of the Complainant’s contract and (2) if has there been a contravention of Section 5 of the Act.

The complainant advised the hearing that she was employed by the respondent from 6th of November 2023 until she received notification from the respondent on 9th of August 2024 stating that that they would be closing the restaurant on the 25th of August 2024.    The complainant advised the hearing that the restaurant closed on 20th of August instead. 

The complainant advised the hearing that this notification was received via a WhatsApp message.

The complainant advised the hearing that she was owed €465.45 in unpaid wages in respect of the week of 12th to 18th of August 2024. The complainant also advised the hearing that she was also owed €39.15 in respect of a shortfall in pay for a bank holiday at the start of August.  The complainant also advised the hearing that she was owed a further amount of €676.91 in respect of 53.30 hours of holiday pay which she had not received.

The Complainant alleges the deduction was unlawful under the act and the Respondent has not attended to provide any defence to this claim or point to any provision of Section 5 which would permit the deduction. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the complaint succeeds.

I am satisfied based on the uncontested evidence of the complainant that the sums outlined are properly payable to her.   Accordingly,  I declare this claim to be well founded, and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant the total sum of €1,181.51 i.e.( €465.45 +€39.15+€676.91)

I declare this claim to be well founded, and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant the total sum of €1,181.51