Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sarah  Walsh

Boots Retail Ireland Limited

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Grace O'Malley 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-00069924-001

11/03/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 14 October 2024 as a Brow and Beauty consultant. Her monthly salary was €2200; net €2150. The Complainant resigned on 4 December 2024, having completed less than two months’ service. On 11 March 2025 she referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, alleging that her final wages had not been paid. The amount in dispute was approximately €300.

The Respondent denies the claim and instead argues that there was an overpayment of wages for November 2024 which was lawfully recouped in the December 2024 Complainant’s termination pay.

he Complainant maintained that she had not received her final wages and that, despite repeated requests, no explanation was forthcoming from either her manager or the HR department. She furnished copies of her communications to support this claim. She also stated that she had not been issued with payslips during her short period of employment and was therefore unable to understand the breakdown of her remuneration.

The Complainant acknowledged at the hearing that, had payslips or a clear explanation been provided at the time, she would not have brought this complaint. While she initially contended that approximately €300 remained outstanding, she accepted during the hearing that, if the Respondent’s account of overpayment and absence deductions was accurate, then no wages were due. She nonetheless stressed that the absence of timely and transparent communication was the core issue. The evidence was that a full explanation was only furnished to her, and to the WRC, on 28 August 2025, a little over two weeks before the hearing

 The Respondent explained that the Complainant had been absent on five days in November 2024. Owing to payroll cut-off dates, those absences were not reflected in her November payslip, and she was paid in full for that month. Payroll records produced by the Respondent showed that, in December 2024, the Complainant was paid for 19 hours worked, but that 37.5 hours not worked in November were deducted, resulting in an overall negative balance. The Respondent contended that there remained monies overpaid which were not recouped. The Respondent contended that the deductions were lawful under Section 5(5) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, which permits deductions in cases of overpayment.

On behalf of the Respondent, Ms Jamie Maher accepted that the Complainant had not received a timely explanation and apologised for this lapse, attributing it to the absence of her manager at the material time.

Ms Maher further gave evidence that payslips are accessible to all employees through an online portal using their staff number. The Respondent exhibited the Complainant’s payslips together with the contractual provisions relating to the recovery of overpayments.

Applicable Law:

Section 5(5) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”) , in its relevant part, addresses overpayment where it states:

“Nothing in this section applies to—

(a) deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee, or any payment received from an employee by an employer, where—

(i) the purpose of the deduction or payment is the reimbursement of the employer in respect of—

(I) any overpayment of wages, or

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

made (for any reason) by the employer to the employee, and (ii) the amount of the deduction or payment does not exceed the amount of the overpayment,…”

Nothing in the Act precludes an employer from making a deduction in respect of an erroneous overpayment of wages. The Respondent produced credible records of absence demonstrating that the Complainant was overpaid in November 2024 due to unrecorded absences, and that this overpayment was lawfully recouped by deduction from her final pay in December 2024. The Complainant accepted at the hearing that, once explained, the deductions were reasonable and that no wages remained outstanding. I therefore find that the complaint was not well founded.

It is equally clear, however, that the Complainant was not provided with an adequate explanation at the time of her departure, and that this lack of communication gave rise to the present complaint. The Respondent has apologised for this shortcoming, and I accept that the apology was genuine. Nevertheless, the absence of timely communication caused unnecessary distress to the Complainant and required her to expend significant effort in pursuing her complaint. The Respondent should take note of this and be mindful of the potential consequences for an employee should a similar situation arise in the future.

For the reasons outlined above, I find that the complaint was not well founded.

Payment of Wages Act 1991.