Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Pablo  Romacho

PMCSY

Representatives

Self-Represented

No Appearance

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-00071431-001

08/05/2025

The Complainant referred a complaint to the WRC on the 8th May 2025 under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 wherein he claimed that he was not paid one days’ wages.

The Complainant stated in evidence that he attended for interview on the 3rd April 2025 for the position of Visa Submission Officer/Mobile Visa Service Provider with an annual salary of €30,000. He attended a training day on the 9th April 2025. Despite assurances from the Operations Manager and the HR Manager that he would be paid for attending the training day he was not paid for the days’ work. The Complainant gave evidence that he was owed one days’ pay amounting to approximately €120.

The Respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing of this complaint. Having reviewed the file I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the claim against it and the hearing date, time and login arrangements. I waited a reasonable time before proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Respondent.

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted to the WRC and the oral evidence adduced at the hearings summarised above.

In considering whether the Complainant’s wages were the subject of an unlawful deduction as alleged, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 as amended (hereinafter referred to as “the 1991 Act”).

Section 1 of the 1991 provides the following definition of wages:

"wages", in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—

(a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and

(b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice:

…

The above definition includes pay.  The Complainant claims that he is due one days’ pay for the 9th April 2025.

Section 5 of the 1991 Act serves to regulate certain deductions made and payments received by employers.

Section 5(1) of the 1991 Act 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.

Section 5(6) of the 1991 Act addresses the circumstances in which wages which are properly payable are not paid:

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.

The non-payment of wages that are properly payable to an employee is therefore an unlawful deduction by the employer. 

In the case of Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 the High Court made it clear that the WRC, when considering a complaint under the 1991 Act, must first establish the wages which were properly payable to the employee on the occasion before considering whether a deduction had been made. If it is established that a deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act had been made, the WRC would then consider whether that deduction was lawful.

The Complainant gave evidence that he attended a training day on the 9th April 2025 and that despite assurances by the Operations Manager and the HR Manager he was not paid for the days’ work. Based on an annual salary of €30,000 he estimated that he was owed €120 for the days’ work.

The Complainant was a credible witness, providing additional detail as required by the Adjudication Officer and supporting his contentions with documentation where possible.  I am satisfied that the Complainant was not paid the wages that were properly payable to him and that he has established his claim to the total gross wages of €120 under the 1991 Act. I find that the Respondent deducted this amount unlawfully and that the Complainant is entitled to payment of compensation of €120 less any lawful deductions. I consider this to be reasonable in the circumstances.

Having regard to the written and oral evidence in relation to this complaint my decision is that the complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €120 less any lawful deductions.