Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Edward  McDonagh

Poundland Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

Heather Watters IBEC

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-00072490-001

17/06/2025

The Complainant referred a complaint to the WRC on the 17th June 2025 under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 5th August 2024. In October 2024 he was promoted to supervisor. The Complainant stated that he was aspiring to be a manager. The difficulties with his pay started in January 2025. He was short wages every month up until May 2025. He engaged with his store manager and the area manager in relation to his pay. Initially it appeared as if the payroll issue had been resolved in May 2025 however by June 2025 he was back to square one.

As a result of payroll issues which were outside of the Complainant’s control he was not paid his correct wages when they fell due and owing which caused him to go into rent arrears, he had to cancel his family’s holiday which meant his children did not get to go on a summer holiday,  he lost the cost of the flights because they were non-refundable and his mental health suffered greatly. The Complainant could not handle the stress any further so he handed in his notice in June 2025 and he finished up work straight away. He was looking for accountability and for someone within the Respondent to hold their hands up and accept that mistakes were made.

In response to questions from the Adjudication Officer the Complainant confirmed that his outstanding expenses were paid by way of a two part payment, that he had received all of his outstanding salary payments by the 13th July 2025 and that as of the 31st October 2025 he had been paid his outstanding holiday pay.

Under cross-examination the Complainant accepted that he was paid his wages, fuel money expenses, unpaid wages and holiday pay. He stated that he was standing up for the wider Dealz workforce because he did not want another worker to go through what he went through and that he was looking to be compensated for the stress and hardship he suffered.

The Respondent submitted that there was no deduction, whether unlawful or otherwise from the Complainant’s wages and that expenses were paid to the Complainant correctly and in line with the Respondent’s policy. The Complainant failed to establish that there were any monies properly payable and outstanding to him or that there had been an unlawful deduction from his wages.

The Respondent addressed each aspect of the Complainant’s complaint in turn.

The first aspect of the complaint was for incorrect wages and these wages were paid to the Complainant albeit late. Whilst the Respondent understood that the Complainant wanted to stand up for the wider workforce in Dealz so that something similar did not happen in the future this did not come within the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

The second aspect of the complaint related to expenses which were outside of the scope of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 however the expenses claimed were paid in full. There was an overpayment of €81.00 paid in error by the Respondent which the Respondent was not looking to recoup.

The third aspect of the complaint related to outstanding wages and the Complainant confirmed that he received the wages albeit late. There has been neither a deduction nor an unlawful deduction of the Complainant’s wages because all outstanding wages have been paid in full.

The fourth claim related to a cancelled family holiday. It was submitted that this was a claim for consequential loss and was not wages within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

The fifth claim was for outstanding annual leave and this has now been paid in full. This came about following the process whereby the Complainant was processed as a leaver.

As of the date of the hearing the Complainant has been paid every element that was due and owing to him under his contract of employment including wages, expenses and holiday pay.

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted by the parties, the oral evidence adduced at the hearing summarised above and the oral and written submissions made by and on behalf of the parties at the hearing.

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 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1991 Act”).

Under the 1991 Act “wages” are defined as:

"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:

Provided however that the following payments shall not be regarded as wages for the purposes of this definition:

(i) any payment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment,

(ii) any payment by way of a pension, allowance or gratuity in connection with the death, or the retirement or resignation from his employment, of the employee or as compensation for loss of office,

(iii) any payment referable to the employee's redundancy,

(iv) any payment to the employee otherwise than in his capacity as an employee,

(v) any payment in kind or benefit in kind,

(vi) any payment by way of tips or gratuities.”

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.

Section 6 of the 1991 Act outlines the directions which an adjudication officer can make, where a complaint is wholly or partly well founded.

The Complainant presented as an honest and credible witness detailing the effect the delays in the payment of his wages and expenses had on his mental health, his family and his financial circumstances. The Complainant confirmed that at the date of the hearing all outstanding wages and expenses had been paid to him but that he was seeking compensation for the stress and hardship he suffered as a result of the Respondent’s actions.

Whilst I sympathise with the Complainant and the circumstances he found himself in, which I find were entirely outside of his control, as of the date of the hearing I find that all outstanding wages due and owing to him have been paid to him (together with outstanding expenses which I explained do not fall within the definition of wages) and that the compensation being sought by him is consequential loss arising as a result of the failure on the part of the Respondent to pay to him wages and expenses at the time they fell due and owing to him. Pursuant to the 1991 Act consequential losses are not regarded as wages and any consideration of the same is outside the scope of my jurisdiction.  I therefore find that the complaint is not well-founded. 

For the reasons set out above I decide that the complaint is not well-founded.