ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055860
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Rhoda Masasula | Tiglin Challenge Ltd |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Self-represented | Annalee Brazel Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
Complaint(s):
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-00067996-001 | 10/12/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
Procedure:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015
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 by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
The matter was heard by
Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020
The first hearing in this matter was held in person and the second was by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Review of the Evidence
I have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held “…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”.
I am required to set out ‘such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision’ per MacMenamin J. in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute.
Zalewski v WRC & Others 2021
The parties were put under notice of the decision in the Zalewski case, that their evidence would be heard under oath or affirmation and of the penalty for perjury. Additionally, the parties were informed that they would be afforded an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and the hearing was to be held in public; the parties offered me neither objection nor reason to have the hearing held in private. Accordingly, the witnesses were advised of the penalty for perjury and witnesses made an affirmation to be truthful with the Commission.
At the first hearing, in attendance were Ms Rhoda Masasula (Complainant) and for the Respondent Mr Jay Bobinac, Mr Gary O’Heaire, Ms Nicola Murphy (Peninsula) and Ms Annalee Brazel (Peninsula). Those given evidence did so under affirmation and cross examination was allowed but not taken up. The second Hearing was attended by Ms Brazel and Mr O’Heaire, the Complainant Ms Masasula did not attend and made no contact with the Commission as to her non-attendance.
In coming to my decision, I have fully considered the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties, and the written and oral submissions on behalf of the parties.
Background:
The Complainant began work as an Outreach Worker from the 25/09/2025 and the employment ended on the 28/09/2025 a total of three days, before they resigned their role. The Complaint is brought under s6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant had raised a complaint over pay and employment terms with the Respondent They applied for a position advertised with an annual salary of €36,990, requiring a Level 7 bachelor’s degree in social care work. This salary corresponded to an hourly rate of €17.79. During the interview process, it was confirmed that, if successful, the complainant would be paid €17.79 per hour. On the first day of work (Wednesday), the complainant did not meet with their manager. On Friday, near the end of the shift, the manager provided a copy of the employment contract and outlined the role. The complainant resigned on Saturday, citing difficulty balancing full-time employment with full-time college commitments. Prior to resigning, they had requested to work part-time, but this request was declined. Upon receiving payment, the complainant noted that €147.32 had been deposited into their bank account. No payslip was issued. Subsequently, the complainant received a social welfare form to be completed by the employer. Upon return of the form, the complainant observed that the stated rate of pay had been altered to €12.70 per hour. The complainant contacted the employer via email to query the discrepancy, believing it to be an error. The employer responded that the complainant had been paid the minimum wage due to a trial period. However, at no point during the recruitment process or employment was the complainant informed of a trial period or a reduced rate of pay. No agreement or contract signed by the complainant referenced such a condition. The complainant only became aware of the reduced rate after the hours had been worked, and payment received. Resumption of Hearing The Complainant contacted the Commission ahead of the deadline and had the case to resume despite confirming that the monies due had been paid but wished to proceed regardless. The Complainant failed to attend the hearing, and no further correspondence or submissions have been received. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Summary The Complainant commenced employment with Tiglin Challenge Limited as an Outreach Worker on 25 September 2024 and resigned on 28 September 2024 after working two shifts totalling 20 hours. The role was advertised at €17.70 per hour. However, she was paid €12.70 per hour, amounting to €254.00 gross. The Respondent acknowledges the error in applying the incorrect hourly rate and confirms that the correct rate should have been €17.70, resulting in a total gross payment of €355.73. The underpayment of €101.73 is acknowledged, and the Respondent has expressed willingness to settle this amount. The Respondent acknowledges that an error occurred in applying the minimum wage rate of €12.70 instead of the advertised rate of €17.70 per hour. The Respondent accepts that this was not a deliberate deduction but a mistake in calculating the correct rate during what was referred to as a trial period. The Respondent further acknowledges the underpayment of €101.73 for the 20 hours worked and has expressed willingness to rectify the matter by paying the outstanding amount. Subsequent to the previous hearing and the provisional withdrawal of the case on the understanding the monies would be paid promptly this happened and the Respondent is at a loss to understand why the provision withdrawal has been cancelled. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Previous Hearing and Provisional Withdrawal This case was heard previously on the 11/04/2025 and provisionally withdrawn. At that hearing it became immediately apparent that the Respondent admitted an error and, to their credit, had made efforts to resolve the matter with the Complainant. The Complainant, when asked, said that they did not understand the legal implications of accepting and withdrawing their complaint. Also, at that hearing the Complainant accepted the bona fides of the Respondent that they wished to pay and signed a letter to provisionally withdraw the complaint on the basis they would receive the monies. Resumption Application On the 25th of April the Complainant confirmed in writing to the Commission that despite receiving the monies they wish to proceed with a formal decision on the matter, placing the Commission in a difficult position where the complaint was still formally open, despite the good faith actions of the Respondent. Resumed Hearing On the 15th of October, I heard the remaining matters in the complaint in circumstances where the Complainant failed to attend or make any representations to the Commission on their non-attendance. I waited the customary 15 minutes and commenced the hearing after hearing from the Respondent and after 30 minutes the Complainant had still not attended. I thanked the parties for their forbearance and closed the hearing. It is clear to me that the Complainant had no intention of attending and that the complaint is vexatious. In circumstances where the parties, including the Commission, have had their time wasted I ding that the complaint is not well founded |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the reasons set out above, I find the complaint not well-founded. |
Dated: 21st of October 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore
Key Words:
|