Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Retail Company

Representatives

Aisling McDevitt IBEC

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-00067530-001

20/11/2024

 The Complainant worked as a customer assistant from 19th November 2019 until 15th October 2024.

The Complainant seeks outstanding wages of 272.50 and 403.00 euro holiday pay from the Respondent. He was dismissed from the company and did not receive a week in hand owed. He did not receive holiday pay. The company deducted 18 hours from his payslip. He did not receive a P60. The has contacted them a number of times and they say he was paid everything he is owed.

The Complainant has high functioning masking autistic disorder. He finds direct confrontation usually makes him extremely uncomfortable. In a face to face interview, he can be extremely quiet and nervous and does not wish to let this affect his complaint.

The Respondent says it has discharged all monies due to the Complainant. It has provided a full detailed response setting out the payments and deductions and says it satisfied its full responsibilities for wages and holiday pay due to the Complainant. 

The Respondent has a Disciplinary and Grievance policy which provides where an employee is on ‘Suspension with pay’ the employee will be asked not to attend work for a period while being paid full contractual pay for core hours. Employees on ‘paid suspension’, are expected to comply with any reasonable instructions regarding the attendance of meetings or discussing relevant matters over the phone. It also clearly states in the company Disciplinary Policy, if an employee fails to comply or engage with this process, the employee may then be considered as absent without authorisation and pay will be stopped in line with the company Unauthorised Absence Policy. The Disciplinary policy clearly states that the process must continue should the employee choose to disengage, and a decision is based on the information available. The Complainant chose not to engage with the Respondent on this internal process and communicated that he ceased to recognise his employment from 3rd October 2024 onwards. The Complainant was dismissed for serious misconduct on 26th October 2024.

The Complainant is not owed a week in hand. He is paid a week in arrears. A detailed response has been furnished to the Complainant. As he did not engage in the disciplinary process, he was deemed on unauthorised unpaid leave from 30th September 2024, and the relevant calculations have been set out. There was an overpayment of holiday leave which was deducted from his final salary.

I am anonymising the identity of the parties to this decision due to the Complainant’s medical condition.

I heard and considered the written submissions of the parties. This matter first came before me on 23rd of January 2025 when I adjourned the matter at the request of the Respondent. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the first hearing.

This complaint was rescheduled for hearing on 2nd October 2025. At the rescheduled hearing, the Respondent’s representative submitted that they had furnished an explanation of all payments to the Complainant, but had not received any response. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the second hearing.

The Complainant suffers from a disability autism disorder which is a disability within the terms of the Employment Equality act 1998-2021. The Complainant submits that he finds direct confrontation makes him extremely uncomfortable. A Complainant is usually required to appear at a remote hearing in order to prosecute their complaint, however, taking into account the specific issues impacting the Complainant due to his medical condition, I am issuing a written decision in the interest of justice.

This complaint is made pursuant to S6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 that an unlawful deduction has been made from the Complainant’s wages. Having reviewed the correspondence from the employer to the Complainant, I note that his last day of work was on 25th September 2024 and he was paid for this week’s work. He was moved to unpaid leave on 30th September 2024 so stopped accruing further salary and holiday leave. Payment for work done is a week in arrears as set out in the Complainant’s employment contract.

I am satisfied the Respondent has discharged wages and holiday pay due to the Complainant and find the complaint is not well founded.

The complaint is not well founded.