ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056968
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Muhammed Hasan Arvas | P.J.B. Management Limited |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Self-Represented |
Complaint:
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-00069296-001 | 14/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/06/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The parties were put on notice of the ruling under Zalewski 2021 that the matter would be heard in public unless there were sufficient reasons to do otherwise; no reasons were put forth, and the parties were also advised of the right to cross-examine witnesses.
After being informed of the penalties for providing false or misleading information to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) the following were put under oath or affirmation, Mr Arvas, Mr Rooney and Ms Bicakci (interpreter).
Background:
The Complainant was employed between the 24/05/2021 and the 11/02/2025 and submitted their complaint to the Commission on the 14/02/2025 bringing them within the 6 months set out by statute. They had originally been employed as a Salesperson, calling door to door selling subscriptions for a Utility Company and were later promoted to a management position. The Complainant found themselves underpaid by €100 and referred that matter to the Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
It is the Complainant case that he discovered that his salary had been reduced by €100 without prior consultation or notification. The Complainant also never received other benefits in the form of a company phone as agreed. According to the terms of his promotion his agreed salary as Hub Manager was €700 per week, plus commission, along with benefits, a company phone, and access to a pool car. However, he was never provided with a company phone as outlined in the agreement, and his salary had been reduced unilaterally. This violates the agreed terms of his promotion and may also breach Article 4.01 of his employment contract, which specifies his remuneration, and Article 6.10, which requires prior consultation for changes to terms of employment. It is the case of the Complainant that his new responsibilities, include managing, training, and supporting a team of representatives to achieve their targets. The documentation emphasizes leadership, training, and morale-building, with no mention of door-to-door sales being a requirement of his role. Despite this, he was required to continue performing duties from his previous role as Field Sales Agent, in conflict with the duties of his new role. The Complainant had to return abroad due the serious illness of his father and was assured that there would be no impact for him. However, this was not to be the case, and he experienced changes to his terms and conditions exacerbating his financial and emotional stress. The Complainant sets out that these issues collectively constitute unfair treatment and a breach of both contractual rights and Irish employment law, including the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, and the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977–2015. The Complainant asks that the WRC grant him the following reliefs. • Written clarification of the rationale and legal basis for the salary reduction. • A review of his duties as Hub Manager, with confirmation that they align with the responsibilities outlined in his promotion email. • Acknowledgment of his emergency leave and its impact, along with assurance that no further adverse actions will be taken against me as a result. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
It was the case of the Respondent that it was unfortunate that these issues were not ventilated through a grievance mechanism rather than being brought to the WRC. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In opening the hearing, it became apparent that the Complainant was not solely pursuing the €100 under the Payment of Wages act, but wished, instead, to litigate several issues related to his former employment, but unrelated to that Act. On closer examination, it became clear to both the Adjudicator and the Complainant that his goal of litigating the other issues were of paramount importance to him and the matter of the €100 was not something he wished to pursue separately from those issues of which the Respondent would not be on notice of. The Complainant was given opportunity to progress his case under the Payment of Wages Act and declared that it was not his wish to do so, that he would withdraw and consider his options of resubmitting his other complaints under the relevant Acts. Given the Complainant did not wish to pursue his complaint referred under the Payment of Wages Act and the reliefs sought by the Complainant are not available under the referred Act, I cannot find the complaint to be anything other than misconceived and not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the Complaint properly before me in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the reasons outlined above I do not find the complaint under the Payment of Wages Act well founded. |
Dated: 14 July 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore
Key Words:
Not well founded, misconceived, |