Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Prathap  Karamalaputti

Bgs Security Limited

Representatives

  Self

 None

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-00066812-001

19/10/2024

The Complainant worked as a security officer with the Respondent from 6th July 2024 to 4th September 2024. Despite receiving payslips, he was not paid the money due to him on the payslip and so submitted this complaint to the WRC on 19th October 2024 seeking to have the monies properly due to him paid.

The Complainant gave evidence on his own behalf.

The Complainant began working with the Respondent on 6th July 2024. He received a payslip by email on 16th August 2024. The payslip was dated 31st July 2024 and showed a net amount due to him of €973.62. However, no payment of this amount was forthcoming. Having repeatedly requested payment, the Complainant told his manager on 23rd August 2024 that if he didn’t receive any monies then he would stop working. His manager asked if he would keep working if he paid him half the money straight away and the rest in one week. The Complainant agreed to this and received €473.62 on 23rd August 2024. When a week went by without the rest of his wages being paid he began to repeatedly ask his manager about the rest of his pay. He was told to contact the company, but received no response whenever he did this. Eventually he could not tolerate the situation any longer and left on the 4th September 2024.

The Complainant received a second payslip by email on 19th September 2024. The payslip was dated 31st August 2024 and showed a net amount of €2,862.20. On 16th October the Complainant received a final payslip by email for the month of September. It was dated 30th September 2024 and showed a net amount due of €215.90.

Despite multiple requests for payment, the Complainant never received any monies other than the €473.62. He provided complete bank statements for the relevant time period which show that no further payments were received up to 14th March 2024. The Complainant gave evidence that he has not received any further payment as of the date of the hearing. The Complainant also submitted into evidence correspondence that he had sent to the Respondent requesting payment.

The Respondent did not attend the adjudication hearing and was not represented. Notice of the hearing arrangements was sent to the Respondent’s registered address on 22nd January 2025. I am satisfied that the Respondent is on notice of the date, time and venue of the hearing.

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides that, to ground a complaint under the Act, wages must be properly payable:

(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 from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 was considered in Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55. In that case, MacGrath J. re-affirmed the proposition that the first matter to be determined is what wages are properly payable under the contract of employment. If it is established that a deduction within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 has been made from the wages properly payable, it is then necessary to consider whether that deduction was lawful.

I accept, based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, that the amount claimed for constitutes properly payable wages that have not been paid to the employee. The Complainant provided pay slips showing that these wages were properly payable and bank statements to show that it had not been received. As there is no evidence from the Respondent that this was attributable to an error of computation, I am satisfied that there has been a deduction from the wages of the Complainant. I am further satisfied, again based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, that this deduction is unlawful and is in contravention of section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The Respondent had an opportunity to explain the failure to pay the Complainant’s wages for work that he did, but did not do so. Having examined the case file, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the date, time and venue of the hearing. I note that a letter was received from a firm of solicitors stating that they were coming on record for the Respondent in this matter on 30th January 2025, however a further letter was received on 18th February 2025 stating that they were no longer acting for the Respondent. I am therefore satisfied that the Respondent was aware of the hearing but chose not to attend.

As the Complainant’s evidence is uncontested and he has proved the elements of his claim, I find that his complaint is well founded.  I find that, in breach of section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, net pay amounting to €3,578.10 (973.62 + 2862.20 + 215.90 – 473.62 = 3,578.10) which was properly payable to the Complainant has not been paid.

I decide that this complaint is well founded.  In accordance with section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (as amended), I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €3,578.10, comprising wages not paid up to 4th September 2024.

Payment of Wages