Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Moeez Ahmad

Gorey Automotive Solutions

Representatives

Self-represented

Adnan Farooq

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00069188-001

10/02/2025

The complaint relates to non-payment of wages for the period from 30 September 2024 to 6 January 2025. 

The complainant told the respondent he was not looking for pay when he did work experience at the respondent’s home in July 2024.  When the respondent asked the complainant in mid-September 2024 if he wanted to work at the respondent’s garage, the complainant confirmed his interest, and in doing an apprenticeship with the respondent.  The complainant did not say anything about not wanting pay. 

The complainant worked at the respondent’s garage from 30 September 2024 until 6 January 2025 in the hope of being registered as an apprentice.  He worked from 9am until 6pm over 59 days.

The complainant was not paid for the days worked.  The respondent told the complainant that he would get paid when he was registered as an apprentice, but that he would not be paid for a trial period of work.

The complainant asked the respondent for work experience. 

There was then discussion about the complainant becoming registered as an apprentice and undertaking an apprenticeship with the respondent.  It was agreed that the complainant would be paid cash up until the time he was registered as an apprentice with SOLAS and that the complainant would be paid at the apprentice rate of pay.

In or around October 2024, the respondent applied to register with SOLAS.  Registration forms from SOLAS were misdirected in the post and there was a delay in the respondent receiving same. The SOLAS training advisor visited the respondent’s workplace and advised the respondent on what was required in terms of the complainant becoming registered as an apprentice.

The respondent accepts that wages are payable to the complainant however it did not accept that wages are payable at the national minimum wage rate.  It was agreed that the complainant would be paid at the apprentice wage rate once registered.  If the agreement had been to pay the complainant at the national minimum wage rate, the respondent would not have hired the complainant but would have hired someone with experience.  It was the respondent’s intention to backpay the complainant at the apprentice rate.

When the complainant requested payment at the national minimum wage rate, the parties parted ways. 

The respondent referred to problems / issues in or around the time of the complainant’s employment, for which the respondent would seek payment from the complainant. 

This is a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, as amended, (the “1991 Act”).

The respondent accepted that there are wages payable to the complainant in respect of the period 30 September 2024 to 6 January 2025.  It was also accepted that it was agreed the complainant would work 5 days per week, and that there were dates during the previously mentioned period when the complainant did not work for the respondent due to illness, appointments and/or other commitments. 

At issue is the rate at which wages were payable to the complainant. 

The complainant claims that he ought to have been paid the hourly national minimum wage rate, which, based on the complainant’s age, was €11.43 per hour up to 31 December 2024, and from 1 January 2025 was €12.15 per hour.  The respondent accepted that wages were due and owing to the complainant but contended that they were payable at an apprentice rate.  When I asked the respondent about the apprentice pay rate, I was advised it was €190.00 per week for a 5-day week working 9am to 6pm daily.  Accounting for a 1-hour unpaid rest break/s during the working day, this equates to €4.75 per hour.

Application of the Law

I am satisfied that the complainant was engaged by the respondent under a contract of employment within the meaning of section 1 of the 1991 Act.

Wages in relation to an employee are defined in section 1 of the 1991 Act as meaning:-

“…. 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,

(vi) any payment by way of tips and gratuities.”

Section 5 of the 1991 Act prohibits deductions from wages save in certain circumstances. 

Section 5(6) of the 1991 Act provides as follows:-

“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.”

It is well established that ‘properly payable’ as per section 5(6) of the 1991 Act means sums to which an employee is properly entitled.

The national minimum wage rates, as provided for under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000, do not apply to the pay of an apprentice within the meaning of or under the Industrial Training Act 1967 or the Labour Services Act 1987.

The complainant was not registered as an apprentice with SOLAS, the relevant State Agency for the purpose of the 1967 Act.  There may have been an intention to register the complainant as an apprentice, but this did not occur.  Differences between the parties on the respondent’s interactions and engagement with SOLAS and the issuing of registration forms are immaterial.  The real issue is that I can find no lawful basis to support the respondent’s position that an hourly pay rate of €4.75, or other apprentice rate of pay, was the properly payable rate for the complainant.

I therefore find that the complainant was entitled to be paid at the national minimum wage rate applicable to his age for the period he worked under a contract of employment with the respondent from 30 September 2024 to 6 January 2025.

It was common case that there were no wages paid to the complainant in respect of the previously mentioned period.  I therefore find, based on section 5(6)(b) of the 1991 Act, that the complaint of a contravention of section 5 of the 1991 Act is well founded.

In accordance with section 6 of the 1991 Act, I direct the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation of €5,418.00 which I consider reasonable in the circumstances.  This is a gross figure for pay properly payable to the complainant in the cognisable period of 11.8 weeks, taking account of the 12 days not worked by the complainant in 2024.  The compensation sum is calculated by reference to the relevant national minimum wage in 2024 and 2025 for the complainant’s age and weekly working hours of 40 hours. 

For the reasons set out above, I find that this complaint against the respondent under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is well founded, and I direct the respondent pay to the complainant compensation of €5,418.00 which I consider reasonable in the circumstances.

Non-payment of wages – Properly payable – Apprenticeship – National minimum wage rate