Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Dmitrii  Kovalchuk

Nugent Linen Limited

Representatives

Self-represented 

Did not attend

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-00070243-001

25/03/2025

The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 1 September 2021. His employment terminated on 31 December 2021 or 14 March 2022.

On 25 March 2025, the Complainant referred his complaint to the Director General of the WRC alleging that on 1 January 2022, the Respondent did not pay him or paid him less than the amount due to him.  The monetary value of the non-payment was stated as €2,400.

In the WRC complaint referral form the Complainant stated that his complaint relates to non-payment of wages and unregistered employment.

The Complainant submitted that he commenced his employment with the Respondent on 1 September 2021. The Complainant and his colleague, Ms Varabyeva worked for the Respondent from September to December 2021 under the supervision of Robert Nugent and Kate Nugent.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent failed to pay him and his colleague the agreed wages for their work and refused to engage in any communication to resolve the issue voluntarily. Despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue amicably, the Respondent has ignored his claims. This situation has caused financial hardship and significant distress.

While in his WRC complaint referral form, the Complainant stated that his employment terminated on 31 December 2021 and the payment was due on 1 January 2022, in his submission of 18 June 2025, the Complainant asserted that he terminated his employment on 14 March 2022.

Time limits

The Complainant furnished the following submission regarding the applicable time limits.

The Complainant submitted that, due to exceptional circumstances beyond his control, he was unable to submit his complaint within the standard time limit. He applied for an extension of time limit.

Reasons for the delay

1. Severe family circumstances and relocation – the Complainant submitted that, at the time of the incident, he was facing a difficult family situation that required him to leave his home country (Belarus) and relocate to Germany. This transition was both emotionally and logistically challenging, which significantly impacted his ability to engage in legal proceedings.

2. Lack of information about his rights – the Complainant submitted that he was unaware of the specific procedures for filing a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. Due to his unfamiliarity with the legal framework, he did not realise that he had a limited timeframe to take action.

3. Attempts to resolve the issue amicably – the Complainant submitted that over the past three years, he made multiple attempts to resolve the matter directly with his employer through informal negotiations. He genuinely believed that an amicable resolution could be reached, and therefore, he refrained from initiating formal proceedings earlier.

4. Lack of access to crucial evidence – The Complainant submitted that a key reason for his delayed complaint was that he did not have access to his personal computer in his country (Belarus), which contained essential evidence supporting his case. Specifically, the Complainant possessed a video recording of a Skype meeting that provides critical proof regarding the issue in question. Without access to this evidence, he was unable to submit a well-documented complaint.

Given these exceptional circumstances, the Complainant requested that the WRC grant an extension and allow his complaint to be processed despite the delayed submission. He believed his case is of significant importance and warrants proper adjudication.

Submission dated 18 June 2025

In his submission dated 18 June 2025, the Complainant acknowledged that the unpaid wages at issue relate to the period September – December 2021. While the present claim was formally lodged outside the standard six-month time limit under section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, he submitted that:

(a) the breach is of a continuing nature, as the debt remains outstanding to this day. Each missed wage payment constitutes a fresh unlawful deduction on its respective due date, and the breach continues until rectified. The Complainant suggested that this position is supported by WRC case law, including McKenzie v Irish Rail, ADJ-00015713 and Kudaravalli, ADJ-00018090, which confirm that wage-related breaches may be treated as continuing deductions where no corrective action has been taken.

(b) The Complainant made sustained and good faith attempts to resolve the matter directly with the Respondents between 2022 and 2025.

The Complainant submitted that these factors constitute reasonable cause under section 41(8), justifying an extension of the time limit to 12 months. Moreover, the constructive dismissal occurred on 14 March 2022 and serves as the latest material date in the timeline of the dispute. Pursuant to section 6(4)(b) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the failure to pay monthly wages constitutes a series of continuing deductions. Accordingly, the six-/twelve-month time limit under section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 runs from the date of the last deduction in the series. In practical terms, the clock re-starts each month until the arrears are cleared.

Submission the adjudication hearing

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant reiterated his position as outlined above. He stated that he had consulted German lawyers and asserted that caselaw existed regarding the time extension beyond 12 months. Regrettably, the Complainant did not furnish copies of the caselaw he relied upon. I was unable to establish what are the cases of McKenzie v Irish Rail,Kudaravalli, and ADJ-00018090.  ADJ-00015713 was a case pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, and the Complainant did not clarify its relevance to his case.

The Complainant was given an opportunity to furnish post-hearing the caselaw he relied upon. No such caselaw was received. However, on 13 July 2025, the Complainant furnished an additional submission as follows.

Submission on statutory time limit (section 6 Payment of Wages Act 1991) dated 13 July 2025

The arrears of €2,400 for September-December 2021 have never been discharged. Under section 6 of the Act a complaint concerning “a series of deductions” must be presented “not later than six months after the last of the deductions”. The Complainant submits that because the debt remains outstanding, the “last deduction” has not yet occurred; the series is still running, so the six-month clock has not begun to expire. In effect, each month in which the Respondents continue to withhold payment constitutes a fresh, continuing deduction (comparable to an unpaid utility bill, which continues to accrue until paid in full).

If, contrary to this view, the WRC treats 31 December 2021 as the final deduction, the Complainant relies on section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. The Complainant submits that good-faith negotiations (January 2022 - March 2025), repeated promises of payment and lack of legal knowledge together amount to “reasonable cause” for any delay. The WRC and the Labour Court have repeatedly accepted that wage arrears remain a continuing deduction until paid, and that such factors satisfy the reasonable cause test.

The name of the Respondent

Regarding the correct respondent, the Complainant requested that the name of the Respondent be amended to reflect three different names: Robert Nugent and Kate Nugent T/A Nugent Linen Limited, Robert Nugent and Kate Nugent T/A Nugent Linen Company; and Siel Textiles. The Complainant stated that he had no contract of employment, no payslips; he was not registered as an employee with the Revenue Commissioners. He said that his payments were received via a bank transfer.

In his submission of 30 May 2025, the Complainant asserted that it is clear from the evidence that the name “Nugent Linen” was actively and deliberately used by Robert and Kate Nugent in the course of their commercial operations. The Complainant furnished supporting documentary evidence such as emails from info.nugent.linen@gmail.com signed by Mr Robert Nugent to Amazon with specific requests regarding Nugent Linen; email correspondence with an Amazon customer where Robert Nugent provides the return address as Nugent Linen, 42 Bellewood, Ballyneety, Co Limerick, V94P3YN and signs the email as “Robert, Nugent Linen”; Bank transfers from Kate Nugent in 2021 with payment descriptions: “MRS KATE NUGENT SEPA-ÜBERWEISUNG EREF+ NUGENT LINEN”.

In his pre-hearing submission dated 18 June 2025, the Complainant stated that the term “Respondents” shall be understood to refer collectively to Robert Nugent and Kate Nugent, trading as “Nugent Linen” and/or “Siel Textiles”, with a business address at 42 Bellewood, Ballyneety, Limerick, V94 P3YN, Ireland.

On 27 June 2025, the Complainant again emailed the WRC to clarify that “the correct designation of the opposing party is: Robert Nugent and Kate Nugent, trading as “Nugent Linen” and/or “Siel Textiles”. The name “Nugent Linen Limited” was used provisionally while the legal form of the business was being investigated.”

On 2 July 2025, the Complainant emailed the WRC with a submission in reply to the Respondent’s correspondence of 26 June 2025. The Complainant stated that the note received:

“… confirms that no company or legal entity called “Nugent Linen Ltd” exists, thereby reinforcing that the correct Respondents are Robert Nugent and Kate Nugent, trading as “Nugent Linen” and/or “Siel Textiless.” Throughout the period of my work, the Respondents consistently identified themselves as operating under the names “Nugent Linen,” “Nugent Linen Company,” and also communicated via e-mails signed “Siel Textiles.” Regardless of whether these were formally incorporated entities, under Irish law Robert Nugent and Kate Nugent remain fully liable as sole traders (or partners) trading under these business names, which means the responsibility for the unpaid wages rests directly with them. (b) It does not dispute the amount claimed or the factual basis of the non-payment, which can be taken as tacit acknowledgment of the debt. (c) The letter is written on headed address 42 Bellewood, Ballyneety, Co Limerick, further strengthening the factual connection to the Irish jurisdiction and venue of these proceedings.”

Post-hearing email of 13 July 2025

In the unsolicited email of 13 July 2025, the Complainant submitted that the designation “Nugent Linen Limited” was used when the complaint was first filed (25 March 2025) because Robert and Kate Nugent styled their business as a “Company” and presented themselves as an Irish incorporated entity, thereby misleading not only external counterparties but even their own employees.

In preparation for the WRC hearing on 9 July 2025, all correspondence and evidence were duly served on Mr and Mrs Nugent in advance; they have acknowledged receipt and do not dispute that they are the proper Respondents.

The Complainant submitted that the correct Respondent is Robert Nugent and Kate Nugent, trading as “Nugent Linen” and/or “Siel Textiles”.

Substantive matter

The Complainant submits that he did not receive his payment for the period from September to December 2021, €600 per month. The Complainant said at the hearing that he had sent to the WRC a flash card with a recording that confirmed that the Respondent did not dispute the outstanding payment. He stated that the flash card was delivered to the WRC Post Registration Unit by post at 9.30am on the day of the hearing. The Complainant was informed that, even if it was the case that the media file/ flash card was received by the Post Registration Unit of the WRC on that morning, the WRC does not accept evidence submitted on memory cards/ sticks.

Following Ms Varabyeva’s evidence, the Complainant wished to make further submission. The Complainant asserted that the WRC complaint form was his preliminary complaint form. He submitted that more details were provided in the document dated 18 June 2025. The Complainant added that the Respondent stopped giving him work and, in 2023, the Respondent did not dispute that he was fired.

The Complainant requested a finding that he was an employee of the Respondent and that the sum claimed was owed to him.

Summary of direct evidence of Ms Iryna Varabyeva

Ms Varabyeva, in her sworn evidence, stated that she started working for Mr Robert Nugent and Ms Kate Nugent in March 2021. The Complainant started a bit earlier. She said that they had the same arrangement regarding their pay. Initially they were paid €150 per month. From September 2021 the were supposed to be paid €600 per month. However, from September 2021 she received no pay. Ms Varabyeva said that from January 2022, there was less and less work given to her until eventually there were no tasks for her.

There was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Respondent.

A letter notifying the named Respondent of the Complainant’s claim was sent on 27 March 2025 to the address provided by the Complainant.

Correspondence informing the Respondent of the arrangements for a hearing to be held on 9 July 2025 issued by post on 27 May 2025.

On 29 May 2025, the WRC received an email from Robert and Kate Nugent stating that no entity called Nugent Linen Limited exists or ever existed to the best of their knowledge. They further stated that they had never had a contract or agreement with the Complainant, any arrangements he may have had were with Mr Ilja Zdanov of Seil Textiles Limited. The Respondent informed the WRC that it would not attend the adjudication hearing.

On 1 July 2025, in response to the WRC remote hearing invitation, Mr Robert Nugent emailed the WRC to state: “I have cc Ilja Zdanov in he will attend the meeting for Siel textiles. I will not be attending. Please do not involve me any further in this matter. Regards Robert”.

On 2 July 225, a letter dated 25 June 2025 which was sent to Ms Kate Nugent, Nugent Linen Limited was returned to the WRC with a note dated 26 June 2025 stating “I again affirm that no company or entity called Nugent Linen Ltd. exist”.

Neither Mr Nugent nor Mr Zdanov attended the hearing.

The Complainant referred his claim on 25 March 2025 alleging that on 1 January 2022 the Respondent did not pay him €2,400.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides in part as follows:

(1) 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.

(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.

Time limits

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (as amended) states:

Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (as amended) provides that if a complaint is not submitted within six months of the alleged contravention, an extension may be granted by an Adjudication Officer up to a maximum time limit of 12 months where, in the opinion of the Adjudication Officer, the Complainant has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay in accordance with the provisions:

An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

The issue of the time limits applicable to claims under the Act of 1991 was considered in some detail by the High Court in HSE v McDermott [2014] IEHC 331. That case pre-dated the enactment of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. However, the time limits originally provided for in section 6(4) of the Act of 1991 as enacted are replicated in section 41(6) of the Act of 2015.

At paragraphs 14 to 16 of his judgment, Hogan J states:

14. Yet the relevant statutory language takes us somewhat further, because the key question is the “date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.” In other words, time runs for the purposes of the Act not from the date of any particular contravention or even the date of the first contravention, but rather from the date of the contravention “to which the complaint relates.” As the EAT pointed out in its ruling on the matter, had the Oireachtas intended that time was to run from the date of the first contravention, it could easily have so provided.

15. For the purposes of this limitation period, everything turns, accordingly, on the manner in which the complaint is framed by the employee. If, for example, the employer has been unlawfully making deductions for a three year period, then provided that the complaint which has been presented relates to a period of six months beginning “on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates”, the complaint will nonetheless be in time.

16. It follows, therefore, that if an employer has been making deduction X from the monthly salary of the employee since January 2010, a complaint which relates to deductions made from January, 2014 onwards and which is presented to the Rights Commissioner in June, 2014 will still be in time for the purposes of s. 6(4). If, on the other hand, the complaint were to have been framed in a different manner, such that it related to the period from January, 2010 onwards, it would then have been out of time.”

By application of the time limit provided for at section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 the cognisable period for the purpose of this claim is confined to the six-month period ending on the date on which the complaint was presented to the WRC. Therefore, the cognisable period covered by the complaint is the six-month period from 26 September 2024 to 25 March 2025.

This claim relates to the wages which the Complainant submits he accrued in September, October, November and December 2021. The Complainant gave evidence that the monies were to be paid to him on 1 January 2022. The Complainant’s employment with the Respondent terminated on 14 March 2022, at the latest.  Therefore, this complaint which was referred to the Director General of the WRC on 25 March 2025, it is outside the time limits provided for in section 41(6) of the Act. The claim is also clearly outside of the extended period of twelve months as provided for in section 41(8) of the Act. Even if the extension was granted to the Complainant, the time limit could be extended to 26 March 2024, at the most. Therefore, his complaint would not have been lodged within the time limits imposed by section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, as amended.

Having regard to the dicta of Hogan J referred to earlier, I find that the complaint is statute barred.

I note the Complainant’s submissions regarding the alternative names of the Respondent.  I am of the view that, in light of my findings above that the Complainant has not met the requirements of section 41 of the Act, I am not required to consider which of the proposed names of the Respondent is correct given that the outcome of such consideration would not make any material difference to my findings regarding my jurisdiction.

I find that the failure on the Complainant’s part to comply with the statutory time limits requirements deprives me of jurisdiction to hear the within complaint. 

I declare this complaint to be not well founded.

Non-payment of wages – time limit-