Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Danielius Vaicikauskas

FixMyPC Limited

Representatives

Self

 No Appearance

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00069949-001

12/03/2025

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

CA-00069949-002

12/03/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00069949-003

12/03/2025

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a general technician from the 22nd of July 2024 until he ceased working for the Respondent on the 11th of March 2025.

The Complainant initially made three claims as follows:

CA-00069949-001 – A complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00069949-002 -A complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00069949-003 - A complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

At the hearing there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. Being satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the time, date and venue for the adjudication hearing, I decided to proceed to hear the claim in the absence of the Respondent.

At the start of the adjudication hearing the Complainant confirmed that the claim pursuant to the Redundancy payments Act 1967 (reference CA-00069949-003) was withdrawn.  The other two claims proceeded. The complainant represented himself and gave evidence on affirmation.

In relation to his terms of employment, the Complainant said that the only document which he received regarding the terms of his employment was “a piece of paper” which was printed with spaces for his name, address, date of birth, pps number and work permit number. He completed and submitted this form but he never received a contract or any other documentation setting out the terms of his employment. As a result of the lack of clarification regarding the terms of his employment the Complainant said that he was not aware of the dress code or of his precise holiday entitlements. A dispute regarding the employment occurred which, the Complainant said was contributed to by the lack of clarification as to the terms and conditions which were applicable to the employment. The Complainant experienced stress and inconvenience as a result of the failure by the Respondent to comply with the provisions of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (as amended). After leaving his employment with the Respondent, the Complainant was out of work and was at the loss of his remuneration for a period of two weeks.

As regards the applicable rate of remuneration the Complainant contended that his weekly gross pay was in the sum of €534.00.

As regards the claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the Complainant said that he was not paid his wages for the final period of his employment despite having received a payslip which set out the amount which was due to him. The said payslip indicates that the Complainant was due the gross sum of €763.80 but this amount was never paid to him

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

CA-00069949-001 - Terms of Employment Claim

This claim is governed by the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994 as amended  (hereafter referred to as “The TE Act”)

Section 3(1) of the TE Act (as amended) provides that an employer shall, not later than 1 month after the commencement of an employee's employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the particulars of the terms of the employee's employment which are set out in detail in that provision.

On the uncontroverted evidence of the Complainant, I find that the Respondent failed to comply with its obligations pursuant to the said provision.

Pursuant to Section 7 subsection (2) (d) of the TE Act, an employer in breach of Section 3 may be required to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks' remuneration.

Based on the uncontroverted evidence of the Complainant, I find that the failure by the Respondent to comply with its statutory obligation to provide the complainant with written terms of employment caused or contributed significantly to the dispute that arose between the parties which said dispute caused or contributed to the Complainant leaving his employment and thereafter sustaining two weeks’ loss of earnings together with stress and inconvenience. In the circumstances to compensate the Complainant for the loss and inconvenience thereby sustained I deem a sum equivalent to three weeks’ gross pay to be just and equitable in all of the circumstances. Accordingly the Respondent is directed to pay the sum of €1,602 by way of compensation for breach of the Complainant’s statutory rights as distinct from remuneration and the said sum is therefore tax free.

CA-00069949-002 -The complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

This claim is regulated by the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (as amended) (“hereafter referred to as “the PW Act”).

Section 5 (1) of the PW Act prohibits unlawful deductions from wages as defined in Section (1). In the case of Sullivan v Dept of Education PW2/1997 [1998] ELR 217, the phrase ‘payable’ was interpreted as meaning all sums to which an employee is “properly entitled”. In the present case I find on the uncontroverted evidence of the Complainant that he was provided with a payslip in respect of his final week of employment which stated that he earned the sum of €763.80 gross. I find that this sum was referrable to the Complainant’s employment and therefore payable for the purposes of Section 5 and that despite the provision to the Complainant of this payslip he was not paid the said or any sum which failure to pay constitutes an unlawful deduction within the meaning of that term in Section 5 (1) of the PW Act and the claim is thus well founded.

Where relevant to the present claim, Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act provides as follows at subsection (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 5 as respects a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee … , that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction …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 (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.”

By way of redress, I am empowered by Section 6 of the Payment of wages Act 1991 (as amended) Act to award such compensation as I deem reasonable subject to a maximum of twice the amount of the deduction, as provided for in Section 6 (1) (b). In the present case there was no explanation offered by the Respondent for the failure to pay the sum owing and moreover the Complainant was deprived of the benefit of this lawfully payable remuneration from the date on which it was payable and further was put to the inconvenience of pursuing the present claim to recover his outstanding wages. In such circumstances I deem a sum equivalent to twice the unlawful deduction to be reasonable in the circumstances. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to pay to the Complainant, compensation in the sum of €1,562.60 by way of arrears of remuneration pursuant to the PW Act.

CA-00069949-001 - The Complaint is well founded. The Respondent shall pay to the Complainant the sum of €1,602 by way of non-remuneration-based compensation for breach of the Complainant’s statutory rights.

CA-00069949-002 -The complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 is well founded. The Respondent shall pay to the Complainant the sum of €1,562.60 by way of arrears of remuneration.

Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994 – Payment of Wages Act 1991- Sections (5) and (6) - Sullivan v Dept of Education PW2/1997 [1998] ELR 217