ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00053606

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  01/09/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Aideen Collard

Procedure:

This complaint was referred under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 to the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter ‘WRC’) on 24th August 2024.  Following delegation to me by the Director General, I inquired into this complaint and gave the Parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any relevant evidence.  This complaint is one of many complaints by former employees of the Respondent to the WRC for the non-payment of wages and other breaches of their employment rights resulting in various awards.  This complaint was listed on a number of occasions but adjourned to ensure proper service on the Respondent in circumstances where the Complainant had attended at its registered office and was unable to locate any entity or persons related to the Respondent there.  At one stage, Solicitors came on record for the Respondent in all complaints before the WRC but shortly thereafter came off record.  Otherwise, the Respondent did not engage with the WRC in relation to this complaint.  It is noted that the Respondent is subject to a Winding-up Petition before the High Court on 10th November 2025.  I am satisfied that proper notice of this hearing had been effected by confirmation of delivery of hearing notification letter dated 22nd July 2025 by registered post to Hugh Downes, Director for the Respondent.  This matter was heard remotely on 1st September 2025.  The Complainant attended and was unrepresented.  He also provided documentation including payslips vouching his complaint.  Evidence was taken under oath and the hearing was held in public.  The Complainant was made aware that the Parties’ names would be published herein.

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a part-time Static Security Guard on behalf of clients of the Respondent between 9th June 2024 and 20th August 2024.  He claimed that he was owed €3,420 gross in outstanding wages which the Respondent had failed to discharge in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.  He sought a decision for the purposes of enforcement and/or payment from the Insolvency Payments Scheme operated by the Department of Social Protection.  The Respondent did not engage or attend the hearing.

Summary of the Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant came to Ireland to study on a Stamp 2 Visa.  The Respondent provided security services to various businesses in the Dublin area.  The Complainant had some security experience and was registered with the ICSE.  He heard about getting part-time work with the Respondent through a friend and made contact with a manager for the Respondent expressing his interest.  A company representative had arranged to meet him in a shop in Dublin City Centre where he received brief training on how to manage shoplifters and was provided with an ID card.  He was not provided with any uniform and was told to wear black.  He signed a ‘Statement of Main Terms of Employment’.  The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a Static Security Guard on 9th June 2024.  He received his roster and details of his work locations via WhatsApp.  His work location varied between different retail chains around Dublin City.

Initially, the Complainant was paid his wages for June 2024 but thereafter, he received payslips for July 2024 for €2,042 gross and August 2024 for €1,378 gross totalling €3,420 gross but did not receive any payment in respect of same.  The Complainant messaged the manager informing him that he desperately needed to be paid as he had no money for his fees, rent, bills, food or travel.  He received text messages back from the manager assuring him that his outstanding wages would be paid.  When he followed up upon not receiving payment, he was informed that the Respondent did not have funds.  One such text message on behalf of the Respondent stated: “Hi guys, Wages will be paid on Tuesday the 24th in your account on Wednesday the 25th, we apologise about the delay, we are also facing late payments and Tuesday all the wages will be paid.  Best regards, Hugh Downes, Director.”  The Complainant continued to be rostered and continued to work on the basis that his outstanding wages would be paid.  However, when his wages were still not forthcoming and he could not make any further contact with the manager, he left on 20th August 2024.  He referred this complaint to the WRC on 24th August 2024.  He confirmed that the non-payment of his wages had caused him considerable hardship.  Although the Complainant was aware that he could have referred other complaints to the WRC including a complaint of non-payment of wages in lieu of annual leave upon cessation of employment, he confirmed that he only wished to pursue this complaint.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent to rebut this complaint, the Respondent did not engage with the WRC and no submissions or documentation was received on behalf of the Respondent.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant seeks compensation in respect of his outstanding wages from the Respondent.  The approach to be taken when adjudicating on a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is set out in Marek Balans -v- Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 approving Dunnes Stores (Cornels court) Limited -v- Lacey [2007] 1 1R 478.  A decision-maker must firstly determine what wages are properly payable under the employment contract before determining whether there has been a deduction under Section 5(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.  Section 5(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides: “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.”  The Complainant gave credible evidence under oath in relation to his outstanding wages as vouched with payslips and text messages on behalf of the Respondent confirming that same had not been discharged to date.  The hourly rate was correctly calculated at €14.50 per hour in accordance with S.I. No. 319/2024 - Employment Regulation Order (Security Industry Joint Labour Committee) 2024, effective from 1st July 2024.  I am satisfied that the Complainant was lawfully working the hours permitted by his Stamp 2 Visa.  Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I find that the Complainant is contractually entitled to the sum of €3,420 claimed.  I therefore find that the non-payment of same constitutes an unlawful deduction from his wages in breach of Section 5(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to this complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6.  I find this complaint to be well-founded based upon the aforesaid reasoning.  In relation to redress, Section 6(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides: “A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4C or 5 as respects a deduction made by an employer from the wages or tips or gratuities of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding- (a) the net amount of the wages, or tip or gratuity as the case may be (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that- (i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or (ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment, or (b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.”  I consider the non-payment of wages to the Complainant in this case to be particularly egregious given that he was a foreign student who had recently arrived in the jurisdiction and was dependent upon such payment for his basic daily needs and studies.  This was exacerbated by empty promises of payment by a Director of the Respondent with the effect that he continued working for nothing.  I therefore consider it reasonable in the circumstances to direct that the Respondent pays the Complainant compensation of twice the amount outstanding, being €6,840.

Dated:   8th October 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Aideen Collard

Key Words:  Non-payment of wages for work undertaken - Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991