Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Lillia Shavlak

I&J Phoenix Limited

Representatives

Mary Guiney

 N/A

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-00070417-001

31/03/2025

This matter was first listed for hearing on 23rd September 2025. On that occasion, the Complainant applied to amend the name of the Respondent from Phoenix Cleaning Dublin to I&J Phoenix Limited.

The address for the Respondent remained unchanged, notwithstanding that, the hearing was adjourned on that date so that a hearing notification letter could be re-issued to I&J Phoenix Limited at the same address.

At the time the hearing was due to commence on 25th November 2025, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

The Complainant gave evidence on her own behalf under oath and an interpreters oath was also administered to Ms. Anna Onyschchenko who provided interpretation services.

The Complainant’s claim is that she did not receive wages properly payable to her in breach of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The Complainant submitted two payslips which she received from the Respondent. The first is dated 31st December 2025 and shows a net amount due of €567.84. The second is dated 31st January 2025 and shows a net amount due of €576.01. She says that she did not receive these payments.

The Complainant stated in evidence that she had received €200 from the Respondent but no more. She is therefore seeking payment of €943.85, which she says is due to her from the Respondent.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing on 23rd September 2025 or 25th November 2025. The hearing notification letter issued on 23rd September 2025 and was not returned to the Commission. No communication has been received from the Respondent in this case.

The hearing was scheduled for 10am on 25th November 2025. At the appointed time, there was no appearance by the Respondent. I satisfied myself that the Respondent was on notice of the date, time and location of the hearing. I also made enquiries to ensure that no communication had been received from the Respondent on the morning of the hearing. I allowed 10 minutes for any late arrival. The Respondent did not appear at any stage in the proceedings.

I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the hearing arrangements and chose not to attend.

The Complainant explained at the outset of the hearing that a mistake had been made when the form was filled out. Due to the language barrier, she had some assistance in completing the form and the person assisting her erroneously put “Phoenix Cleaning Dublin” instead of “I&J Phoenix Limited” on the form. She applied to change the name on the complaint form.

The address, and Eircode, that all communication in relation to this case was sent to for Phoenix Cleaning Dublin is identical to the address and Eircode for I&J Phoenix Limited. No correspondence was returned to the Commission in relation to this case. The Respondent’s name is not substantially different in that it contains the word “Phoenix” and I accept that an error, not of the Complainant’s making, occurred in completing the form. I am unaware of any prejudice that the Respondent could potentially suffer in this case. The question for me is whether I am permitted to allow a change in the Respondent name.

The Labour Court has addressed the issue of amending a Respondent’s name in previous decisions. In Auto Depot Limited v Vasile Mateiu UDD1954 the Court held that:

In arriving at this conclusion, the Court is also conscious of the High Court Judgment in O’Higgins -v- University College Dublin & Another (2013) 21 MCA wherein Mr Justice Hogan held: “Even if the wrong party was, in fact, so named, no prejudice whatever was caused by reason of that error (if, indeed, error it be)…. In these circumstances, for this Court to hold that the appeal was rendered void by reason of such a technical error would amount to a grossly disproportionate response and deprive the appellant of the substance of her constitutional right of access to the courts.”

Declining jurisdiction in these circumstances would certainly amount to a “grossly disproportionate response” as envisaged in O’Higgins.

The Court is further satisfied that this approach is in line with the generally accepted principle that statutory tribunals, such as this Court, should operate with the minimum degree of procedural formality consistent with the requirements of natural justice. On that point the decision of the Supreme Court in Halal Meat Packers (Ballyhaunis) Ltd v Employment Appeals Tribunal [1990] I.L.R.M 293 is relevant. Here Walsh J stated, albeit obiter, as follows: -

• This present case indicates a degree of formality, and even rigidity, which is somewhat surprising. It is a rather ironic turn in history that this Tribunal which was intended to save people from the ordinary courts would themselves fall into rigidity comparable to that of the common law before it was modified by equity.

Accordingly, the Court considers the erroneous inclusion of ‘Auto Depot Tyres Ltd’ on the WRC complaint form to be no more than a technical error. The Court is fully satisfied that the Respondent’s name can simply be amended on the paperwork to reflect its correct legal title,… 

I find that similar circumstances apply in this case and the name on the complaint form is a technical error which can be amended. On that basis, I agree to the amendment of the Respondent’s name to “I&J Phoenix Limited”.

The complaint relates to two payslips that the Complainant received, but was not paid in full for. This is an alleged breach of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

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

“5. (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.”

And

“5(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. MacGrath J. stated at paragraphs 34 and 35 of the judgement:

“Section 5 of the Act of 1991 prohibits the making of deductions from wages save in certain circumstances. Section 5(6) provides that where 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, then, except insofar as the deficiency or non – payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non – payment should be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

Central to the court’s analysis must be the concepts of wages properly payable and the circumstances in which, if there is a deficiency in respect of those such payments, it arose as a result of an error of computation.”

The question for me to determine in the first instance therefore is what wages are properly payable under the contract of employment.

Given that the Respondent issued payslips to the Complainant, I am satisfied that the amount of €1,143.85 was properly payable to her. The Complainant acknowledges that she received €200 and therefore there remains €943.85 properly payable to her, which based on her uncontested sworn evidence, I accept that she has not received. I therefore consider that there has been a deduction of €943.85 from the Complainant’s properly payable wages.

There is no evidence that non-payment of this amount is attributable to an error of computation and it is therefore considered a deduction within the meaning of the Act. I must now consider whether that deduction is lawful.

Section 5(1) deals with deductions under the Act. It states that:

5.— (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.

No evidence was provided to show that the deduction was required or authorised by statute; that it was required or authorised by a term of the Complainant’s contract of employment or that the Complainant had given her prior consent in writing to it. Therefore, I am satisfied that none of the exemptions set out at section 5(1) apply.

I am satisfied, based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, that this deduction was unlawful and the Complainant’s complaint is therefore well founded.

For the reasons set out above, I find in favour of the Complainant and direct the Respondent to pay her €943.85 within 43 days of the date of this decision.

Payment of wages