ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056452

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Victor Eze	Best Guard Security Services

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Complaint:

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-00068646-001	16/01/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/06/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

The Complainant has brought a complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015. Where such a complaint is presented the Director General is empowered to refer that complaint forward for adjudication by an Adjudication Officer pursuant to Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. Following the said referral,it is incumbent on the assigned Adjudicator to make all relevant enquiries into the complaint. This will include hearing oral evidence, considering submissions made and receiving other relevant evidence.

In particular, the Complainant herein has referred the following complaint:

A complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.

Background:

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

The Specific Details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 16th of January 2025. I am satisfied that the Complainant has demonstrated reasonable cause prevented him from bringing this complaint any earlier.

At the completion of the hearing, I did take the time to carefully review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment 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…”.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant gave evidence on his own behalf. The Complainant worked in the Respondent company for less than two months. He worked as a security guard with placements in Spar and Centra shops in the city centre. As the employment did not meet his expectations, the Complainant left the employment on or about the 30th of June 2024.

The Complainant fully expected to be paid for all the hours he had worked. The Complainant had been paid for the hours/weeks he had worked in the May of 2024. I have had sight of the payslip from the payroll operations received on the 31st of May.

The Complainant was not paid for the hours he worked in the four weeks he worked in the June of 2024. The Complainant has given uncontradicted evidence that he worked a 42-hour week with the Respondent company, at a rate of €12.95 per hour.

The Complainant confirmed that, as of the date of the hearing, he had not been paid anything in respect of the four weeks he worked prior to departing from this company.

The Complainant gave oral evidence on affirmation setting out his complaint.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 14th of May 2025- and sent to the registered office of the Respondent at 2a Damastown Walk.

Findings and Conclusions:

By way of preliminary observation, I am satisfied a Contract of Employment existed between the parties such that a wage defined by the 1991 Act was payable to the Employee by the Employer in connection with the employment.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in this hearing. There can be no doubt that the Respondent has withheld remuneration from the Complainant contrary to Statute and in circumstances where the Complainant was not in a position to easily supplement the shortfall.

The failure to present at the hearing and/or make any effort to ameliorate the situation demonstrates a lack of understanding of the hardship imposed by the Respondent on the Complainant.

The Complainant must succeed.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

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

CA-00068646-001 - The complaint herein is well founded and I direct that the Employer does pay to the Employee a sum of €2,175.00

Dated: 25th of September 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Key Words: