ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057973
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Andrés Martínez Cuquerella | 5 Star Stay Ltd. Trading as House Of Padel |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
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-00070363-001 | 28/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 and made to the Director General, a referral can be made by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services. I can confirm that I (as an appointed Adjudication Officer) have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered during the course of the hearing.
In this instance the e Complainant has brought a complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 and where such a complaint is presented the Director General is empowered to refer that complaint forward for adjudication by an Adjudication Officer pursuant to Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. Following the said referral,it is incumbent on the assigned Adjudicator to make all relevant enquiries into the complaint. This will include hearing oral evidence, considering submissions made and receiving other relevant evidence.
In particular, the Complainant herein has referred the following complaint:
A complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act provides that an employer must pay wages that are properly payable to an employee. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.
It should be noted that a non-payment of wages that are properly payable on a given occasion shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on that occasion (per Section 5(6)).
Background:
This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.
The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 28th of March 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.
In the interests of fairness, the WRC acquiesced to an application made for the provision of an interpreter. It is noted that the interpreter is provided to assist the Adjudicator to conduct an orderly and fair hearing of the Complaints being made by the Complainant in his/her preferred language. The interpreter did not guide or assist the person for whom the interpreter was sought/the Complainant. The Interpreter simply interpreted what was being said by the Complainant. I perceived there to be no difficulty in communication between the Interpreter and he Complainant.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. The Complainant gave an oral account of his employment with the Respondent entity. The Complainant was assisted in this endeavour by a translator provided at the request of the Complainant. The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form. I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case which I had provided when he had submitted his complaint in March of 2025. The Complainant alleges that there are outstanding monies owed to him in the form of wages which were properly payable to him on the termination of his employment. Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 11th of September 2025 - and which said letter was posted to the registered office of the Respondent company and marked for the attention of a Mr. William McGlade a Director of the Company. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the Complainant herein. I am satisfied that the Respondent chose (for reasons only the Respondent can know) not to attend this hearing and it is noted that the Respondent has not at any time engaged with the WRC in response to communications sent by the WRC regarding the Complainant’s complaint. In the circumstances, the Complainant’s evidence is considered by me to be unchallenged other than any points of clarification which I put to the Complainant during the course of the hearing. The Complainant came to work for the Respondent Company 5 Star Stay Limited and in particular for an entity trading as House of Padel which appears to be an indoor sports venue dedicated to Padel and Pickleball. The Complainant came as a top-rated coach in the sport of Padel. The Complainant commenced his employment on or about the 20th of January 2025 and I have had sight of a Contract of Employment dated the 9th of February 2025. The Complainant was in this workplace for 8 weeks before his employment was terminated seemingly because there was not enough coaching work to make his employment viable. The Complainant was engaged to do a 40-hour week in the premises as a general presence. The rate of pay was €14.00 per hour. However, for each hour of actual coaching the Complainant was to be paid a premium rate of €30.00 per hour. The club charges the customer €120.00 per hour of coaching. The basic wage was therefore €560.00 (or €112.00 per day) though I note from the last pay check received by the Complainant (at the end of March 2025) and which showed the gross pay to date, that he was earning in and around €650.00 gross per week. The Complainant was notified that his role was being terminated on the 21st of March 2023, and the employment came to an end on that date. The Complainant was upset that he was letting down customers who had fully paid up for coaching with him specifically, in advance. The Complainant gave evidence that he was still owed some wages which were lawfully payable at the end of his employment. This included the non-payment of public holidays (St Brigid’s day and St. Patrick’s day). This amounts to €224.00. The Complainant was not paid for accrued annual leave of three days. Payment in lieu amounts to €336.00. The Complainant was not paid the full amount for one of hour of coaching he’d completed. This amounts to €16.00. Finally, the Complainant’s dismissal was immediate and without notice. The Contract of Employment allows for two weeks of notice for someone of the Complainant’s length of service. I am finding the Complainant is entitled to payment in lieu of notice in the amount of two weeks pay as set out above. By way of an observation, I found the text messages from the company Director to the Complainant to be intimidating and threatening in tone and print. The messages are heavy handed and out of order. These read: I’ll make it my mission to let your next employer of your actions of lying about the job you’re doing, the manipulation of your worth. and You’re going about this the wrong way if you want to coach padel in Dublin or even Ireland so I would advise you politely for you to change your stance |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00070363-001 – The complaint herein is well founded, and I require that the Respondent does pay to the Complainant the amount of €1,876.00
|
Dated: 25th November 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|