ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055242
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Luis Pigozzo | Indeff Limited |
Representatives | Self-represented | Did not attend. |
Complaint(s):
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-00067279-001 | 10/11/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00067279-002 | 10/11/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/06/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Máire Mulcahy
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.
I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021. The parties proceeded in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence may be required. I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard, to present evidence relevant to the complaints and to cross examine witnesses.
The complainant gave evidence under affirmation.
The respondent did not attend.
Background:
The complainant has submitted a complaint of an unlawful deduction of €3750 from his wages on 27/09/2024 and a further deduction of €3750 on 25/10/2024. The complainant had been employed as a software engineer with the respondent from 01/06/2023 to 10/11/2024. His gross monthly wage was €3750.00, his net monthly wage was €3079.00 He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 10/11/2024.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Evidence of the complainant given under affirmation. The complainant had been employed as a software engineer working for clients in Ireland, UK and Europe in an on-site and remote capacity. He was paid monthly, though pay dates were unpredictable. The respondent failed to pay him his salary for September and October 2024. He had to borrow money. In mid-October he emailed the CEO seeking payment of his September salary who assured him that he would be paid. He also contacted the HR department, beginning of November seeking his October salary. They assured him that he would be paid. No salary payments were forthcoming. He submitted copies of bank accounts in evidence which were devoid of any salary entries. He asks that his complaint be upheld. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent failed to attend or to provide any explanation for his absence. I am satisfied that the respondent was notified of the date and time of the hearing into the above complaint. The respondent failed to attend or provide any explanation for his absence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am obliged to establish if the respondent made an unlawful deduction of €3750 from the complainant’s wages on 27/09/2024 and a further deduction of €3750 on 25/10/2024 in contravention of the act of 1991. Relevant Law. Section 5 (1) of the 1991 Act states “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 identifies a deduction as follows: “Where the total amount of 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.” As a first step in establishing the existence or not of an unlawful deduction, the complainant must demonstrate that the payment deducted from him was a properly payable sum. His contract submitted in evidence states that he is entitled to an annual salary of €45,000, to be paid in equal monthly instalments into his bank account. His bank accounts, submitted in evidence, are devoid of entries from the respondent. Therefore, in the absence of contrary evidence, the deductions in September and in October 2024 were properly payable sums. I find on the basis of the complainant’s uncontested evidence that the respondent made an unlawful deduction of €3750 (gross) in September 2024 and made a further unlawful deduction of €3750 (gross) in October 2024. I find the cumulative deduction of €7500 be an unlawful deduction I find this complaint to be well founded I require the respondent to pay the sum of €7500 to the complainant subject to all lawful deductions |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I decide that his complaint is well founded. I direct the respondent to pay the sum of €7500 to the complainant subject to all lawful deductions. |
Dated: 19th November 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Máire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Unlawful deduction. |