Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Joselyn Moreira

Good Place Beauty Limited

Representatives

Represented herself

Did not attend the hearing

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-00069221-001

11/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00069221-002

11/02/2025

The complainant is a qualified vet in her home country of Chile and she came to Ireland in 2024 to learn English.  She has experience as a beauty therapist and, through a friend in her school, she said that she heard about a job in the Good Place Beauty Salon.  She was interviewed by the owner, Mr do Couto and she started work in the salon on November 9th 2024.

In her evidence, the complainant said that, at her interview, she agreed to accept the job for an hourly rate of €18.00.  She said that Mr do Couto told her that it would be better for her not to have a contract, so that she could pay less tax. 

The complainant said that she went to school in the mornings from Monday to Friday and she worked in the salon from 1.00pm until 8.00pm or 9.00m.  On Saturdays, she worked from 9.00am until 9.00pm or 10.00pm.  She said that she worked very few Sundays.  She worked on Christmas day for two hours.  Her last day at work was January 3rd 2025 when she said decided to leave because, despite all her efforts, she wasn’t being paid her proper wages.  She said that when she asked Mr do Couto about the shortfalls in her wages, he said that she would get it all back from the Revenue Commissioners when she left the country.

The complainant also complained that tips paid by customers electronically with their bank cards were not distributed to staff.  She said that, in a normal day, she worked with one client every hour and that a client would normally leave a minimum of €10.00 as a tip, but sometimes considerably more. 

The complainant understood that she was to be paid monthly.  She produced copies of payslips for the two months ending in November and December 2024.  In November, when she worked for six days a week for three weeks, she was paid €780.00 gross for working 52 hours.  She was paid for working for 65 hours in December, although she worked for four weeks and two days.  She received no wages for two days’ work in January 2025.

November 2024 Wages

The complainant’s November payslip shows that she was paid for working 52 hours at €15.00 per hour and that her gross pay was €780.00.  Based on her evidence that she worked from Monday to Friday from 1.00pm until 8.00pm or 9.00pm (seven hours), and on Saturdays from 9.00am until 9.00pm (11 hours), I estimate that she worked 46 hours each week.

In the three weeks from Saturday, November 9th until Friday, November 29th I estimate that the complainant worked for 138 hours.  She also worked for 11 hours on Saturday, November 30th, meaning that she worked for a total of 149 hours in November. 

For the month of November 2024, the complainant was paid for working for 52 hours at €15.00 per hour.  As her evidence is that she agreed to take the job for €18.00 per hour, and, as she worked for 149 hours, she should have been paid €2,682.00.  The shortfall for the month of November is €1,902.00.

December 2024 Wages

The complainant’s December payslip shows that she was paid for working 65 hours at €15.00 per hour and that she received €12.36 in tips and €75.00 which is shown as “Xmas Commission.”  Her gross pay was €1,062.35.  Her pay for the 65 hours was €975.00.  Based on her evidence that she worked for the month of December, including two hours on Christmas day, I estimate that her hours worked were as follows:

Mondays – Fridays:  22 days @ 7 hours = 154 hours

Saturdays:  4 days @ 10 hours = 40 hours

Christmas Day:  2 hours @ double time = 4 hours

Total:  198 hours

For the month of December 2024, the complainant was paid for working for 65 hours at €15.00 per hour.  As her evidence is that she agreed to take the job for €18.00 per hour, and, as she worked for 198 hours, she should have been paid €3,564.00.  The shortfall for the month of December is €2,589.00.

January 2025 Wages

The complainant said that she worked as normal on Thursday, January 2nd but that she left on January 3rd after not working a full day.  She received no wages for January 2024.

I estimate that the complainant worked for 10 hours on January 2nd and 3rd and that she was entitled to wages of €180.00.

Holidays Due at Termination of Employment

When her employment ended, based on having worked for eight weeks, the complainant had an entitlement to three days’ holiday pay.  I am satisfied therefore, that she is entitled to holiday pay of €432.00 (24 hours @ €18.00 per hour). 

At the hearing, the complainant produced a copy of a payslip for the month ending January 2025 which indicates that she was paid for €140.40 for 9.36 hours of holidays.  She said that she didn’t receive this holiday pay from the respondent.  She produced a copy of her bank statement which shows that the respondent transferred €561.60 to her on December 9th 2024 and €552.43 on January 3rd 2025.  These are the net amounts shown on her payslips for November and December 2024.

The Law Related to the Failure to Pay Proper Wages

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides that, to ground a complaint under the Act, wages must be properly payable:

(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.

I am satisfied that the respondent had an opportunity to provide a response to the complainant’s claims regarding the failure to pay her proper wages for all the hours she worked from November 9th 2024 until January 3rd 2025.  As the complainant’s evidence has not been rebutted, I find that her complaint is well founded.  I find therefore that, in breach of section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, the below amounts of gross wages have not been paid:

November:  €1,902.00

December:  €2,589.00

January:  €180.00

Holiday pay:  €432

I find therefore, that a total of €5,103 in gross wages which was properly payable to the complainant has not been paid.

The Law Related to Electronic Tips

The Payment of Wages (Amendment) (Tips and Gratuities) Act 2022 (“the 2022 Act”) was enacted on December 1st 2022 and inserts new sections 4A to 4F into the Payment of Wages Act 1991.  Section 4B(1) provides that,

(1) An employer to which this section applies shall, in a manner that is fair in the circumstances and in accordance with this Act, distribute to his or her employees any tips or gratuities received by the employer by an electronic mode of payment.

I am satisfied that this legislation applies to the respondent and that the complainant was entitled to a share of the tips left by customers electronically when they paid for the service they received in the salon. 

Section 4B(2) is clear, that employees are legally entitled to receive a share of tips and gratuities paid in electronic form, by credit or debit card and thatan employer is not entitled to keep such tips:

(2) Subject to subsection (3), an employer shall not retain any share of tips or gratuities received by the employer by an electronic mode of payment.  

Subsection (3) provides that an employer may retain a share of the tips only if they regularly perform, “to a substantial degree” the work performed by their employees.  As the respondent did not attend the hearing, no argument was submitted to support this possibility.

The complainant was a credible witness and she said that she looked after about one client every hour.  She could not be expected to know how much was generated in tips or how the tips should have been shared with her.  Based on her evidence that, between November 2024 and January 2025, she worked for 357 hours, I estimate that she should have received €3,000 in tips.

The complainant said that when she commenced working for the respondent, she was told that it would be better for her, from the point of view of her tax liability, if she didn’t get a contract of employment.  As the respondent has not attended the hearing to provide any defence or explanation in relation to this claim, I must accept the evidence of the complainant and find that there is substance to her complaint. 

Having identified the breach of s.3(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, in accordance with section 7(2)(d), I am required to order the employer to pay compensation of “such an amount (if any) as is just and equitable, having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration…”  Taking account of the circumstances outlined by the complainant, it is my view that compensation equivalent to four weeks’ pay is just and equitable.

CA-00069221-001:  Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991

I have concluded that the respondent did not pay the complainant wages properly payable to her of €5,103 and tips of €3,000, resulting in an illegal deduction of €8,103 gross.  I decide therefore, that this complaint is well founded.  In respect of redress, in accordance with section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (as amended), I am required to direct the respondent to pay compensation as a net amount.  I estimate that no tax would have been due on the amount of €8,103 and that combined deductions for PRSI and USC would have been in the region 5%.  I therefore direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €7,700.

CA-00069221-002:  Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

I decide that this complaint is well founded and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €3,312, equivalent to four weeks’ pay, based on her working 46 hours each week at an hourly rate of €18.00.  In accordance with s.192A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, this award is not subject to deductions for PAYE, PRSI or USC. 

In summary, in respect of her complaints under the two headings above, I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €11,012.  This overall award is not subject to any deductions.

Non-payment of wages, tips, failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions of employment.