Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Pratik Vasant Tarte

BGS Security Limited

Representatives

N/A

N/A

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-00063575-001

21/05/2024

The Complainant worked as a Security Guard for the Respondent from 12 March 2024 until 20 April 2024. The Complainant worked approximately 20 to 24 hours per week, earning €12.90 gross per hour. The Complainant submitted his Complaint Form to the WRC on 21 May 2024. The Complainant submits that the Respondent failed to pay him for the hours that he worked in April 2024, in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, as amended. The Complainant is seeking €1,422.50 net.

The Complainant outlined that in March 2024, he spoke to “John”, who worked for the Respondent. The Complainant sent his security licence to John, as requested. The Complainant was subsequently offered a job as a Security Guard and John became his Supervisor / Manager. The Complainant did not receive a contract of employment or any other documentation. The Complainant collected a uniform from a shop in Dublin.

The Complainant’s tasks as a Security Guard included monitoring CCTV and preventing shoplifting. He worked 20 to 24 hours per week. He was paid monthly. The Complainant outlined that John organised the shifts for all employees and that he was assigned his shifts on an “app”. The Complainant stated that, over a six-week period, he worked at a number of shops in Dublin. 

The Complainant outlined that he was paid for the hours that he worked in March 2024. He outlined that a colleague told him that the Respondent did not pay its employees. The Complainant raised this with John, who denied it. On 12 April 2024, the Complainant gave his notice to John, telling him that the hours were too much and that he had college work to do. He also outlined that he was worried that he would not get paid. The Complainant’s last day was 20 April 2024.

On 18 May 2024, the Complainant sent a “WhatsApp” message to John, enquiring about his pay for hours worked in April 2024, but received no response. The Complainant stated that he also tried to call John, but the call was disconnected. The Complainant subsequently filed his WRC complaint. He stated that John later replied to his “WhatsApp” message to say that he would be paid. The Complainant outlined that he heard nothing further from John.  

On 30 September 2024, on the advice of a colleague, the Complainant emailed the Respondent. He received a response from the Respondent’s Accounts and Payroll Department, indicating that he would be paid. However, the Complainant outlined that he did not receive any payment. The Complainant outlined that he is owed €1,422.50 net, as per his payslip dated 30 April 2024. The Complainant outlined that this amount includes a refund concerning some (possibly emergency) tax which had been previously deducted.

There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

In a letter from the WRC dated 14 April 2025, the Respondent was informed of the details of the Hearing to take place on 27 May 2025. The same letter set out the procedure regarding postponement requests. A copy of this letter was sent to four addresses on record for the Respondent. The Respondent did not seek a postponement and did not attend the Hearing.

On the morning of the Hearing, a grace period was allowed for the Respondent to attend, but the Respondent did not do so.

One letter outlining the details of the Hearing, was subsequently returned to the WRC sometime after the Hearing. One letter enclosing the Complainant’s submissions, was also subsequently returned to the WRC sometime after the Hearing. It appears from the file that the remaining three letters outlining the details of the Hearing, were not returned to the WRC.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the Hearing and did not attend.

The Law:

Sections 5 and 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 as amended (the “PWA”), provides as follows:

“5. (1) 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 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.”

And

“5(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,

then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.”

And

“6. (1) 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.”

Case Law:

Section 5(6) of the PWA was considered in Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55. In that case, MacGrath J. re-affirmed the proposition that the first matter to be determined is what wages are properly payable under the contract of employment. If it is established that a deduction within the meaning of the PWA has been made from the wages properly payable, it is then necessary to consider whether that deduction was lawful.

Findings and Conclusion:

The Complainant’s evidence was uncontested. The Complainant outlined that the Respondent failed to pay him €1,422.50 net, for the hours that he worked in April 2024, in breach of the PWA.

The Complainant provided documentation in support of his complaint. The Complainant provided a copy of his payslip dated 30 April 2024, which indicates that the Complainant was owed €1,422.50 net. The Complainant also provided a copy of his “WhatsApp” messages dated May 2024, to John, his Supervisor / Manager, in which he sought his outstanding pay and was informed that he would receive his pay. Finally, the Complainant provided a copy of his emails to the Respondent dated September and October 2024. These emails outline that the Complainant sought his outstanding pay of €1,422.50 and that the Respondent replied to indicate that he would be paid. The Complainant’s uncontested evidence was that he never received this payment.

In the circumstances, I find the complaint well-founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant a total net amount of €1,422.50.

For the reasons set out above, I find the complaint well-founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant a total net amount of €1,422.50.

Payment of Wages Act 1991.