Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Elly  Kiprono Rop

BGS Security Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

David Cotter Independent Workers' Union

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-00070741-001

10/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946

CA-00070741-002

10/04/2025

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

CA-00070741-003

10/04/2025

In his complaint form, the Complainant outlined that he was employed as a Security Guard with the Respondent from 13 May 2024.  He alleged that he was not paid wages due to him, that he did not receive the terms and conditions as laid down by an Employment Regulation Order for the Security Industry and that he did not receive a statement of his core terms of employment.

The Respondent operated a Security Service. There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent, neither did the Respondent provide a written response to the complaints.

General Background

The Complainant submitted that he, (a Kenyan citizen), came to Ireland in 2023 to further his educational opportunities and to undertake a Master of Arts in Dispute Resolution with the Independent College located at the Steelworks, Foley Street, Dublin 1. The Complainant took up employment officially with the Respondent on the 13 May 2024 as a Security Officer. His work involved Door Supervision.

The Complainant worked a mix of day and evening shifts as a security officer at various shops in Dublin City area as an employee of BGS Security Limited and should have earned €12.90 per hour up to 1 July 2024 and then afterwards €14.50 per hour (Employment Regulation Order (Security Industry Joint Labour Committee) 2024 (Statutory Instrument No. 319 of 2024). The Complainant’s gross pay was approximately €709.50 per month. The Complainant was meant to work was 20 to 30 hours depending on the weekly roster assigned to him.  The Complainant attached a payslip for the month of May 2024 to ground his complaint.

The Complainant noted that the Respondent outlined on its employee payslips that the monies were paid at the end of each month by cheque, but that this was never the case. The monies were paid directly into employee’s own bank accounts. The Complainant’s employment ceased on the 9 September 2024 after he decided that he could no longer wait to be paid while his roster hours were gradually being reduced by his employer.

The Complainant stated that after working with the company for over a month, the Respondent began to assign additional hours to him but when it came to payment for these additional hours at the end of the month, it was not forthcoming. Every time the Complainant contacted representatives of the company, he was told that he would get paid on a certain date and when that that date passed, no monies were ever paid to him.

The Complainant submitted that he would receive payslips on each occasion but unfortunately no payment was ever received, either by cheque, cash or bank transfer. The Complainant appended examples of communications between him and the Respondent in relation to taking up duty, his assigned work locations and the eventual pursuit of outstanding wages. These communications dated from 10 May 2024 to 10 October 2024. As the Complainant worked these additional hours, payment was drawn out to the point that he was owed a considerable amount in wages. The Complainant was forced to leave his place of employment after a few months as he needed to be paid wages to live, pay bills, etc. As a result, the Complainant had no other choice but seek redress through the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission as set out below.

CA-00070741-001

The Complainant contended that he was not paid the amount of salary he should have received on 9 September 2024.

In his complaint form he stated that after working for the company for over a month, his employer began to assign additional hours to him but when it came to payment for those additional hours, it was not forthcoming.  He stated that all was well initially and he had no issues with his employer but that as he worked the additional hours, payment was drawn out to the point where he was now owed a substantial amount of wages.

He stated that he contacted his employer, but no communication was forthcoming.

In his submission the Complainant stated that it was his understanding that his former employer, was in breach of certain sections of The Payment of Wages Act, 1991 in that wages were not properly paid for hours worked by him. It was also his belief that the non-payment of wages that are properly payable to any employee is deemed an unlawful deduction by the employer, the employer in this case being the Respondent. He noted that Section 1 of The Payment of Wages Act, 1991 defines "wages", in relation to an employee, as meaning “any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including….. (a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and (b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice……’.

 The Complainant submitted that he had calculated that the amount of ‘wages’ owed to him as being over €976.00 as this figure which he submitted on his original complaint form to the Commission. He now has calculated what the correct amount of money that is owed to him as ‘wages’ as being €1,088.49 (Gross). Unfortunately, that payment never happened, and the monies remain outstanding by his former employer. The Complainant submitted that he believed that his former employer through the non-payment of wages to him breaches Sections 5(1) and 5(6) of the 1991 of The Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and he noted that Section 5(1) states ‘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 instrument 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.’ Section 5(6) states ‘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, 5 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.”

The Complainant stated that his only wish was to be paid what was properly owed to him from the labour kindly provided by himself to the Respondent. He further stated that unfortunately, his access to timesheets and payslips had been denied and he no longer had access to such records to assist him in providing confirmation of hours worked.  Nonetheless, the Complainant provided, from his own records, a detailed breakdown of dates, locations of work and hours worked and affirmed that he based his calculation on those records. The Complainant appended copies of rosters to support his calculations.

Those detailed calculations, demonstrated that the Complainants combined total of monies outstanding amounted to €1,088.49 (Gross)

CA-00070741-002

In his complaint form, the Complainant contended that he did not receive the terms and conditions as laid down by the Employment Regulation Order (ERO) relating to the Security Industry.

He stated that the Respondent had not adhered to the conditions laid out in the ERO (Security Industry Joint Labour Committee) in relation to payment for normal hours and overtime hours worked. 

In his submission the Complainant stated thathe believed that the Respondent, in failing to pay him the wages that is owed for his labour, was not in compliance with the Employment Regulation Order that oversees the Security Industry - Employment Regulation Order (Security Industry Joint Labour Committee) 2024 (Statutory Instrument No. 319 of 2024).

The Complainant noted Section 15, entitled ‘Payment of Wages’ which states that ‘each employer shall have an operational procedure in place for dealing with wage shortages and overpayments to workers. The key objective shall be to resolve the issue at the earliest opportunity’. It further states that ‘the procedure shall be communicated to all workers, and to the relevant Trade Union, where such applies’.

The Complainant submitted that he was not properly consulted on the reasoning why he was not being renumerated for his labour by his former employer nor why there was a wage shortage. He was left “in the lurch” regarding any payment and the company failed in its duty of care towards him causing much anguish and unnecessary stress.

CA-00070741-003

The Complainant contended that he did not receive a statement of his core terms of employment in writing from the Respondent.  He stated that he was never provided with a contract of employment.

In his submission the Complainant stated that he believed the Respondent breached the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 - 2014 in that he was not issued with a contract of employment after taking up employment with the company and hence his core terms of employment where not outlined to him as required under the Act.  The Complainant noted that employees have the right to be presented with a contract of employment, in writing, which sets out their core terms of employment which is also covered under the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018 and updated by the European Union (Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions) Regulations 2022.  He confirmed that this was not applied to him.

Closing Remarks

The Complainant submitted that by seeking adjudication on several complaints he wished only to be paid the wages that were owed to him. He has no ill feeling towards his former employer but feels very much let down and used by the company. The Complainant’s trade union, the Independent Workers Union, wrote to the company in pursuit of the monies outstanding to him but never received any response back from the company.

The Complainant noted two recent Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Hearing Decisions, Reference Numbers ADJ-00055412 and ADJ-00055323 which he submitted were very similar to his case involving two other ex-employees of the Respondent.  In both instances the complaints sought redress for non-payment of wages. The Complainant submitted that these adjudication decisions should be considered and taken into account; and they set a precedent when it comes to compensation awards by the Commission. The Complainant appended a breakdown of complaints heard before the Workplace Relations Commission by former employees of the Respondent as of 21/07/2025 and submitted that this was “a poor indictment” of the way the Respondent treated its employees, particularly in the way it never paid the wages owed to them.

CA-00070741-001

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent, neither did the Respondent provide a written submission outlining it’s position.

CA-00070741-002

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent, neither did the Respondent provide a written submission outlining it’s position.

CA-00070741-003

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent, neither did the Respondent provide a written submission outlining it’s position.

Preliminary Matter

Time Limit

At hearing, Mr. Cotter, on behalf of the Complainant, sought an extension of the time limit for submission of the instant complaints.

He apologised for the late submission and confirmed that initially the Complainant and the union had sought to resolve matters amicably with the Respondent.  Numerous attempts were made to make informal contact and later, the union wrote seeking to address the matter.   He noted that the Complainant had never formally resigned his employment and so he was keen to resolve matters informally in the first instance.

He confirmed that during the first few weeks of employment there was no difficulty with his salary but that the first problem to emerge was a minor payment issue where additional hours were not paid.  He stated that the Complainant was given assurances that these would be paid the following month.  He further confirmed that when non-payment became an ongoing issue the Complainant was repeatedly given assurance that payment would be made and asked to work “just this week and then you’ll be paid”. 

Mr. Cotter advised that when the Complainant continued to be left without payment his main priority was to seek alternative employment as he was suffering significant financial instability arising from the non-payment.  Mr. Cotter advised that it was only after he had found alternative employment that he sought advice on how to deal with the issue.  Mr. Cotter clarified that the Complainant was also then cut off from access to the Respondent systems and was unable to access pay slips etc to ground his complaint. 

In all the circumstances I consider that the Complainant has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay in submitting his complaint and I confirm that an extension of the time limit is granted.

CA-00070741-001 (Complaint under Payment of Wages Act, 1991)

The Complainant’s evidence was that he was initially paid €12.90 per hour from the commencement of his employment and that this rate increased to €14.50 per hour based on a revision of the rates set out in the ERO for the security industry.    He gave evidence that he was asked to work significant additional hours after the first month in employment and that he was never paid for those hours.

The Complainant gave evidence that he was given verbal assurances that the monies owed would be paid but that no payment was forthcoming.  He provided copies of WhatsApp messages and correspondence from his trade union to the Respondent seeking payment and he gave evidence that no response was ever received.  The Complainant also provided samples of rosters worked and payslips received to ground his complaint. The Complainant also furnished a detailed breakdown to demonstrate that he was owed €1088.49 in unpaid wages.

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act defines wages as

“(a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay; or any other emolument, whether payable under his employment contract or otherwise, and

(b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice”

Section 5(1) states “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 instrument 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.”

Section 5(6) states ‘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, 5 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.”

On the day of the hearing, I awaited the attendance of the Respondent for in excess of 15 minutes beyond the scheduled start time but there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing. I am satisfied that that notice containing the details of the arrangements for the hearing was sent to the registered address of the Respondent.

In the absence of any alternative evidence being adduced before me, the evidence of the Complainant, together with supporting documentation provided by him has satisfied me that the amount of €1088.49 was properly payable to the Complainant, was not paid to him and therefore constitutes an unlawful deduction as prohibited by the Act.

I find that this complaint is well founded and that the Complainant is entitled to be paid the amount of €1088.49 in unpaid wages.

CA-00070741-002 (Complaint under section 45A of the Industrial Relations act, 1946

The security industry is regulated by an Employment Regulation Order (“ERO”) under the above act.  The ERO sets out the minimum terms and conditions which must operate within the sector, and which are binding on employers and employees within the sector. The terms encompassed by the ERO are the result of negotiations between representatives of security companies and relevant trade unions.  Based on the evidence provided by the Complainant I am satisfied that the activities of the Respondent and the work engaged in by the Complainant come within the scope of the ERO.

The minimum rate of pay applicable to the security sector is set out in Section 1.1 of the ERO and was set at €14.50 per hour from 1st July 2024.  The Complainant submitted that this rate was never applied to him, and he gave evidence to that effect at hearing.

In representing the Complainant, Mr. Cotter emphasised the importance of the ERO within the sector and he outlined the competitive nature of the industry, where companies regularly compete with each other for security contract work.  He stated that without the protection of the ERO there was a high risk of a “race to the bottom” scenario and that workers would inevitably bear the brunt of such an environment and create an unstable industrial relations climate in the industry.

Mr. Cotter also outlined that the Respondent had treated other employees in a similar fashion, paying them wages for an initial period of employment before ceasing to make any payment and he highlighted the many cases that had already been heard before the WRC in relation to the Respondent.  He stated that on each occasion, and similarly to the Complainant employees were left with no option but to seek alternative employment.  He further stated that in all cases employees were left with debts and in a precarious financial situation arising from the non-payment of wages. 

Mr. Cotter noted that the Complainant had found himself, through no fault of his own, providing free labour to the Respondent and that it was likely that the Respondent had reaped the financial benefit of such an arrangement, not only in relation to the instant Complaint but in relation to the many employees who had been similarly disadvantaged.

Mr. Cotter further noted that in failing to pay its employees, the Respondent was the beneficiary of a significant obvious and unfair advantage over competitors who followed the law and paid employees in accordance with the requirements of the ERO.

On the day of the hearing, I awaited the attendance of the Respondent for in excess of 15 minutes beyond the scheduled start time but there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing. I am satisfied that that notice containing the details of the arrangements for the hearing was sent to the registered address of the Respondent.

Section 45A of the act states that:

“A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of he Workplace Relations act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of an employment regulation order in relation to a worker, shall do one or more of the following, namely –

(a)   Declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b)   Require the employer to comply with the employment regulation order, or

(c)    Require the employer to pay to the worker compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the worker’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.”

In deciding on the appropriate redress in the instant case I have taken into account the loss suffered by the complainant and the impact on his financial stability arising from that loss.  I have also taken into account the egregious behaviour of this employer and its practice of blatant disregard for the rights of its employees.  I share the view expressed by Mr. Cotter, that the practice of non-payment of wages and the flagrant disregard for the ERO places law abiding companies at significant disadvantage when competing for security contracts, undermines the Joint Labour Committee process and creates a risk of industrial relations instability.

In all the circumstances I find that this complaint is well founded.

I have formed the view that the maximum award of two years remuneration is just and equitable.  In accordance with the method of calculation referred to at (c) above I determine that the Complainant’s weekly wage for the purposes of this act was €435.  Allowing for the award already outlined under the Payment of Wages Act above I consider it reasonable to award the Complainant €45,240 in compensation.

CA-00070741-003

The Complainant contended that he did not receive a statement of his core terms of employment in writing from the Respondent.  At hearing the Complainant gave evidence that soon after he commenced employment, he was given a contract to sign, that he did so and returned it to the Respondent.  He stated that he was to be given a copy for his records but that the Respondent never furnished him with the document.

Section 3 of the Act states: “3 - (1) An employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee's employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee's employment, that is to say –

(a) the full names of the employer and the employee,

(b) the address of the employer in the State or, where appropriate, the address of the principal place of the relevant business of the employer in the State or the registered office (within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1963),

(c) the place of work or, where there is no fixed or main place of work, a statement specifying that the employee is required or permitted to work at various places,

(d) the title of the job or nature of the work for which the employee is employed,

(e) the date of commencement of the employee's contract of employment,

(f) in the case of a temporary contract of employment, the expected duration thereof or, if the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the date on which the contract expires,

(g) the rate or method of calculation of the employee's remuneration,

(h) the length of the intervals between the times at which remuneration is paid, whether a week, a month or any other interval,

(i) any terms or conditions relating to hours of work (including overtime),

(j) any terms or conditions relating to paid leave (other than paid sick leave),

(k) any terms or conditions relating to —

(i) incapacity for work due to sickness or injury and paid sick leave, and

(ii) pensions and pension schemes,

(l) the period of notice which the employee is required to give and entitled to receive (whether by or under statute or under the terms of the employee's contract of employment) to determine the employee's contract of employment or, where this cannot be indicated when the information is given, the method for determining such periods of notice,

(m) a reference to any collective agreements which directly affect the terms and conditions of the employee's employment including, where the employer is not a party to such agreements, particulars of the bodies or institutions by whom they were made”.

On the day of the hearing, I awaited the attendance of the Respondent for in excess of 15 minutes beyond the scheduled start time but there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing. I am satisfied that that notice containing the details of the arrangements for the hearing was sent to the registered address of the Respondent.

In the instant complaint the Respondent was obliged to “give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing…” and in order to fulfil its obligation the Respondent must provide the Complainant with the written document; it is not sufficient to provide the document for signing and then take it away.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 13 May 2024 and while he never formally resigned his employment, he sought and secured alternative employment by early September 2024.  In all the circumstances, I find that this complaint is well founded and award the Complainant €1200, equivalent to 2 weeks’ pay.

CA-00070741-001

I have found that this complaint is well founded, and I decide accordingly.  I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the amount of €1088.49 in unpaid wages.  Such award is subject to statutory deductions.

CA-00070741-002

In have found that this complaint is well founded, and I decide accordingly. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the amount of €45,240 in compensation.

CA-00070741-003

I have found that this complaint is well founded, and I decide accordingly.  I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the amount of €1200, as compensation for breaches of the Act.