Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Michael  Kiely

Secret Recipe Limited

Representatives

Self-represented

No appearance

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-00070152-001

21/03/2025

The complainant’s case is that he was unpaid for the full number of days worked with the respondent company. In his submission prior to the hearing, he also claims that his wages were deducted due to a fine for expired motor tax on the company van. The submission outlines a further claim that he was not refunded for receipts he submitted for a phone case and the cleaning of the company van.

The respondent rejects the complaints and submits that no monies are due to the complainant.

Summary of Complainant’s Evidence

Mr Kiely gave testimony that he commenced employment as a Sales Representative on 10th February 2025 and worked for three and a half weeks. He said his last day was 4th March 2025. He was earlier informed on 27th February 2025 that his employment would be ending with a weeks’ notice. He attended work on the week commencing 3rd March 2025. On 4th March 2025, he was called to the office and was told that his employment was ending with immediate effect.

He said he was parked in Mallow, County Cork, on 28th February 2028 and received a fine for expired motor tax on the company van. He said that this fine was deducted from his pay.

He said he was told to submit receipts for incidental expenses when he commenced employment. He submitted a receipt for a phone case and the cleaning of the company van. He was not refunded for the €18.30 expense incurred.    

The respondent made a submission by email on 26th September 2025 to the Workplace Relations Commission. The submission responded to the complaints made. The submission stated that the respondent would not be attending the upcoming hearing. The submission also set out that the complainant was adding new complaints to the original complaint.

I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the payment of wages complaint. The respondent was also on notice of the hearing arrangements and decided not to attend, as per their written submission. I have considered the submission and reviewed the original complaint form. The complaint as set out on the complaint form only refers to unpaid days worked. The respondent was not on notice of the deduction due to the fine nor the expenses claim. Therefore, I decide that I have no jurisdiction to deal with the two additional complaints.

I am satisfied with the uncontested testimony of the complainant that he was paid for three weeks despite having worked for over three weeks. He said the amounts paid to his bank account were €611.65, €611.65 and €893.15 (with a tax rebate). As he worked the 3rd and 4th March 2025 before having his employment terminated, I am satisfied that these wages are properly payable. Based on the gross amount of weekly pay on the complaint form of €769, the wages properly payable to the complainant are €307.60.

I find that the complaint is well founded and that a payment of €307.60 gross is properly due and should be paid to the complainant by the respondent.   

I find that the complaint is well founded and that a payment of €307.60 gross is properly due and should be paid to the complainant by the respondent.   

Payment of Wages