Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Marcelle  Da Silva Teixeira

Madame Pho le Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

 In person

Did not attend.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00071384-001

07/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00071384-003

07/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00071384-004

07/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00071384-005

07/05/2025

The complainant, Marcelle da Silva Teixeira, worked at the Respondents restaurant between October 2024 and April 2025.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 7th May 2025.

The following is a summary of documents provided by the complainant at the hearing of the complaint.

Case summary.

The complainant, Marcelle da Silva Teixeira, worked at the Respondents restaurant between October 2024 and April 2025. During this time, she performed duties as waitress, bar staff and, unofficially, assistant manager. The employer paid only up to 20 hours per week officially, at the minimum wage, through payslips and bank transfers. Any additional hours were paid in cash, initially at €10/hour and later €11 / hour, which was below the statutory minimum wage and not reported to Revenue. No holiday pay, public holiday pay or overtime was provided. Tips were managed without transparency. The evidence and testimony demonstrate systematic breaches of Irish employment law.

Chronology of Events.

·       October 2024 – Hired as bar staff / waitress, later given additional duties without contract or pay adjustment.

·       November 2024 – Began supporting manager Marc by preparing weekly rosters and staff allocations.

·       December 2024 – Raised complaints regarding payment. Management confirmed that holidays would not be paid. Worked on 26th December without extra compensation.

·       January 2025 – Manager Marc left the company. Cash hand system continued under owner Peng. Duties reduced back to bar work.

·       February 2025 – WhatsApp evidence shows salary delays affecting multiple staff. Rachel confirms that she also did not receive pay.

·       March 2025 – Worked on St Patricks Day without additional pay.

·       April 2025 – End of employment. Final week paid only for 20 hours plus tips. No holiday pay or settlement provided.

Relevant Legal Breaches.

·       National Minimum Wage Act 2000 – underpayment of hours worked above 20 hours / week.

·       Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 – failure to provide paid annual leave and public holiday entitlements.

·       Payment of Wages Act, 1991 – Irregular cash payments, lack of transparency with tips and salary delays.

·       Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – 2014 – no updated contract despite additional managerial duties.

Summary of Evidence.

The complainant relies on the following evidence, which has been provided to the WRC as separate attachments:

·       Weekly rosters showing long daily shifts.

·       Timesheets confirming work on public holidays without compensation.

·       WhatsApp messages where management admitted no holiday pay would be provided.

·       WhatsApp messages confirming delays in salary payments affecting multiple staff.

·       WhatsApp messages showing the complainant was instructed to prepare staff rosters , evidencing unpaid managerial duties.

·       Bank statements confirming fixed weekly deposits of €254 regardless of actual hours worked.

·       BrightPay payslips showing only 20 hours officially recorded, no holiday pay or overtime.

·       Revenue correspondence confirming employer’s tax non-compliance.

·       Email from WRC inspector acknowledging receipt of payslips and case documentation.

Conclusion and Request.

The evidence demonstrates repeated and systematic breaches of Irish employment law by Madame Pho le Limited. The complainant respectfully requests that the Workplace Relations Commission recognise the following:

·       Underpayment of hours worked above 20 hours per week.

·       Non-payment of holiday and Public Holiday entitlements.

·       Salary delays and irregular cash payments.

·       Failure to issue proper payslips for all hours worked.

·       Assignment of managerial duties without recognition or pay adjustment.

The complainant seeks compensation for all unpaid wages, holiday entitlements, public holiday pay, and differences between actual pay and statutory minimum wage, as well as recognition of the employer’s misconduct.

The respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing of the complaint.

I am satisfied that the respondent received a hearing notification letter dated 10th September 2025. This letter would have informed the respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing of the complaint.

CA – 00071384 – 001.

This is a complaint submitted under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000.

Section 24 (1) of the Act states:

Without prejudice to any other action that might be brought against an employer  under this Act or otherwise, but subject to subsection (2), if an employee and his or her employer cannot agree on the appropriate entitlement of the employee to pay in accordance with this Act resulting in an alleged under-payment to the employee, the employee or the employer, or the representative of either of them with their respective consent, may, by notice in writing containing such particulars, if any, as may be prescribed , refer the dispute to a rights commissioner for the rights commissioner’s decision.

(2) A dispute cannot be referred to or dealt with by a rights commissioner –

(a) unless the employee –

(I) has obtained under section 23 a statement of his or her average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period, or

(ii) having requested a statement, has not been provided with it within the time limited by that section for the employer to supply the information,

and a period of 6 months (or such longer period, not exceeding 12 months, as the rights commissioner may allow) has not elapsed since that statement was obtained or time elapsed, as the case may be…..

In the instant case I do not believe that the complainant asked the respondent for a statement pursuant to section 23 of the Act. This being the case I have no jurisdiction to consider this complaint.

CA – 00071384 – 003.

A complaint submitted under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

The complainant contends that she did not receive paid holiday / annual leave entitlement.

The complainant was employed for a period of 6 months; she would be entitled to annual leave accrued of two working weeks.

I conclude that this complaint is well found and now order the respondent to pay to the complainant a sum of €1,080.00 (calculated at minimum wage). This sum should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision.

The amount awarded is an amount that the complainant earned.

In addition to this amount, I am ordering the respondent to pay a sum of €1,000 in compensation to the complainant. This sum should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision.

 CA – 00071384 – 004.

A complaint submitted under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

The complainant contends that she did not receive Public Holiday entitlements.

The complainant was employed for a period of 6 months; October 2024 to April 2025.

During this period the following days / dates were Public Holidays:

·       Monday 28th October 2024

·       Wednesday 25th December 2024 (Christmas Day - business was closed)

·       Thursday 26th December 2024 (St Stephens Day)

·       Wednesday 1st January 2025 (New Years Day)

·       Monday 17th March 2025 (St Patricks Day)

·       Monday 21st April 2025 (Easter Monday)   

I find this complaint well found and now order the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €628.80 (calculated at appropriate minimum wage rates). This sum should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision.

The amount awarded is an amount that the complainant earned.

In addition to this amount, I am ordering the respondent to pay a sum of €1,000 in compensation to the complainant. This sum should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision.

 CA – 00071384 – 005.

A complaint submitted under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The complainant contends that the employer has made an unlawful deduction from her wages and / or tips or gratuities.

The complainant could not provide any particulars to substantiate this complaint. There was no date of deduction, there was no amount ..

With no particulars I am unable to consider the complaint and must therefore find that this complaint is not well found.

CA – 00071384 – 001.

I do not believe that the complainant asked the respondent for a statement pursuant to section 23 of the Act. This being the case I have no jurisdiction to consider this complaint.

CA – 00071384 – 003.

I conclude that this complaint is well found and now order the respondent to pay to the complainant a sum of €1,080.00 (calculated at minimum wage). This sum should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision.

The amount awarded is an amount that the complainant earned.

In addition to this amount, I am ordering the respondent to pay a sum of €1,000 in compensation to the complainant. This sum should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision.

CA – 00071384 – 004.

I find this complaint well found and now order the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €628.80 (calculated at appropriate minimum wage rates). This sum should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision.

The amount awarded is an amount that the complainant earned.

In addition to this amount, I am ordering the respondent to pay a sum of €1,000 in compensation to the complainant. This sum should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision.

CA – 00071384 – 005

With no particulars I am unable to consider the complaint and must therefore find that this complaint is not well found.