Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Complainant Shop Manager

A Respondent Shop Owner

Representatives

Self-Represented

The Respondent did not attend and was not represented at hearing. 

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-00069520-001

24/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00069520-002

24/02/2025

These matters came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 24/02/2025.  The Complainant alleges contraventions by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statutes in relation to his employment with the Respondent.  The aforesaid complaints were referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 06/06/2025. 

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a shop manager at all material times.  The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 06/09/2022.   The employment ended on 31/12/2025 at such time as the Complainant was summarily dismissed.    The Complainant was paid €512.99 gross weekly. 

CA-00069520-001

WRC complaint form

I received only my payslips (December) mid of January.  My employer did not transfer my wages to my bank account and until now there is no response from him.  Also he told me to stop working without any notice. [SIC]

Written statement for WRC hearing

I am brining this claim to the Workplace Relations Commission because I have not been paid my wages, and I believe I was treated unfairly by my employer.

I was employed by [REDACTED] as a Shop Manager from 06/09/2022 until approximately 01/01/2025.  During this time, I worked full-timed, and I performed my duties to the best of my ability.  I was a full-time employee working 5 days a week 10 hours daily and did not even get holiday pay.

On 31st December 2024, I was informed and became aware that I was being accused of theft and was asked to stop working without any notice.  I was shocked by this accusation and was not give any opportunity to respond, explain, or participate in any formal investigation.  Since that time, I have not received any official correspondence, disciplinary letter, or outcome related to the allegation. 

Additionally, I was not paid for the work I had already completed.  Despite repeated efforts to contact my employer, I received no response.  It has now been over five months, and I had no further contact from the company.  [SIC] 

The Complainant at hearing averred on oath that his working time in December comprised 09/12/2024 – 14/12/2024; 16/12/2024 – 21/12/2024; 23/12/2024 – 30/12/2024.  The Complainant submits he is owed €1538.97.  The Complainant submits that when the Respondent stopped paying him his wages in December and when he asked why he wasn’t being paid the responses from the Respondent’s wife included her husband was away and she didn’t have a cheque book. 

The Complainant at hearing averred he was accused by the Respondent of stealing €100,000.00 from the shop and the Respondent on the last day he worked there told him to give back the keys and not to return. 

The Complainant submits at hearing the Gardai have never contacted him about these allegations of theft. 

CA-00069520-001/2

The Respondent notified the WRC by email of 01/01/2025 that the unpaid wages were on hold because the Complainant is under investigation by the Gardai for the theft of a large amount of money from its business. 

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing.  In circumstances where I am satisfied that the Respondent was properly served with notice of the date, time and venue of the adjudication hearing and having waited some time to accommodate a late arrival and where I formally opened and closed the adjudication hearing on 06/06/2025 I will proceed to set out hereunder my findings and conclusions.

CA-00069520-001 complaint of a contravention of section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

This is a complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. 

In conducting my investigation and in reaching my decision, I have carefully reviewed all relevant documents provided to me.  I have carefully considered the oral evidence adduced at hearing.  I deemed it necessary to make my own inquiries into the complaint during hearing to establish and understand the facts and to seek clarification on certain matters.   The Complainant provided documentation to corroborate his claims comprising all his payslips for the relevant period.   

The matter for me to decide is whether the Respondent has properly paid the Complainant in accordance with section 5 of the 1991 Act. 

The Relevant Law

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 provides the following definition of wages:

"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:

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

Regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers.

5.—(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.

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 address the circumstances in which wages which are properly payable are not paid:

(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 fromthe wages of the employee on the occasion.

In the case of Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 the High Court made it clear that the WRC, when considering a complaint under the 1991 Act, must first establish the wages which were properly payable to the employee on the occasion before considering whether a deduction had been made.  If it is established that a deduction within the meaning of the Act had been made, the WRC would then consider whether that deduction was lawful. 

Therefore, the question to be decided is whether the wages claimed by the Complainant were properly payable. 

The Relevant Facts

I note the Complainant was issued with payslips throughout December in line with the dates he submits he worked as set out above.  I note the Complainant did not receive his wages from 9/12/2024 to 30/12/2024 notwithstanding his attendance at work throughout. 

The Complainant’s uncontested evidence on oath is that he has not received these wages in the amount of €1538.97 gross (€512.99 x 3 = €1538.97).

I am satisfied the monies owing are properly payable to the Complainant.  Accordingly, I find this complaint to be well-founded. 

Section 6 of the 1991 Act provides as follows:

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.

I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the amount of €1538.97 gross within 42 days from the date of this decision.  

CA-00069520-002 complaint of a contravention of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 (the “1973 Act”)

The Relevant Law

Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 sets out the minimum notice period as follows:

 “(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be  

When considering and determining on the Respondent’s failure to pay notice to the Complainant I am guided by the Superior Courts where it has been held that statutory adjudicative bodies should not adopt a more stringent procedural approach than that adopted in ordinary litigation.  I note in particular in the case of County Louth VEC v. Equality Tribunal [2009 IEHC 370] where the High Court held as follows:

“If it is permissible in court proceedings to amend pleadings where the justice of the case requires it, then, a fortiori, it should also be permissible to amend a claim as set out in a form such as an originating document before a statutory tribunal, so long as the general nature of the complaint remains the same.” 

I am satisfied if a fact is referred to in the written submissions which correlates with a cause of action not selected on the complaint form that the Respondent has been afforded the opportunity to deal with this matter.  I am satisfied it was clearly set out in the Complainant’s WRC Complaint Form that the Respondent “told me to stop working without any notice.” 

I am satisfied there is no prejudice served upon the Respondent.     

I determine this complaint is properly before me as the narrative is clearly set out in the Complainant’s WRC complaint form.  I am satisfied that the Respondent is on notice of these matters in circumstances where the matters complained of were already raised in the narrative of the claim form.  I am satisfied the Respondent suffers no prejudice on the basis the fact is clearly referred to in the written WRC complaint form and correlates with a cause of action albeit not selected on the complaint form.   

For the reasons set out above, as the Workplace Relations Complaint form is not a statutory form, I deem it appropriate in the interests of fairness to add a complaint under Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. 

The Relevant Law

Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 (the “1973 Act”) sets out the minimum notice period as follows:

 “(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be (a) (c) (d) (e) not relevant

(b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks,

I find the complaint made pursuant to the 1973 Act to be well-founded arsing out of the failure of the employer to provide notice on termination of the contract.  I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant €1,025.98 gross. 

CA-00069520-001 complaint pursuant to section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint is well-founded.  I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant in the sum of €1,538.97 gross within 42 days from the date of this decision.   

CA-00069520-001 complaint pursuant section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint is well-founded.  I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant in the sum of €1,025.98 gross within 42 days from the date of this decision.   

No appearance by Respondent;