ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060209
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Wiktor Dudek | Elestren Limited |
Representatives | Self-represented | No attendance |
Complaint:
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-00072922-002 | 29/06/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/12/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint. The hearing was held in the Hearing Rooms of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Carlow. The complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under oath. There was no representative of the respondent in attendance at the hearing.
Background:
The complainant submitted a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act which was received by the WRC on 29th June 2025. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Summary of Mr Dudek’s Evidence The complainant, Mr. Dudek, gave testimony that he started working as a lorry driver, welder and mechanic with the respondent from 1st March 2025. He said that he was not paid wages from the beginning of April 2025 up to 15th April 2025. He put into evidence a spreadsheet of hours worked. He said that Mr Duffy agreed to pay him the amounts outstanding and wrote him a cheque for €2,641.00. He could not cash the cheque as it was returned by the bank to refer to drawer. In testimony, the complainant said that the amounts included a payment of 38 hours for driving to work from his home. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no representative of the respondent in attendance at the hearing. I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Law Section 5(6) states- 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.” Wages as defined by the Act does not include expenses incurred by the employee. Finding It is clear from the unchallenged testimony and the fact that Mr Duffy wrote a cheque for €2,641.00 that wages were properly payable to the complainant. In assessing the amount properly payable, the Act defines wages which does not include expenses incurred by employees. Having heard the testimony of the complainant, I am not satisfied that the travel payments can be classified as wages as defined by the Act. Due to this, I have deducted the payment for travel to work.
I find that the complainant is due net wages of €1,869.00 from the respondent. |
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.
I find that the complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is well-founded and that the respondent shall pay to the complainant the net amount of €1,869.00. |
Dated: 04-12-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Payment of Wages |