Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sean  Murphy

 Barcol Hospitality Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

Kelvin Hyland Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00070709-001

09/04/2025

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

CA-00070709-002

09/04/2025

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent, Barcol Hospitality Limited, a contracting catering and hospitality business who run the Hunted Hog bar in Castlemartyr, County Cork for another party.  He commenced employment on 23 September 2024 as a bartender, working part-time hours. On 9 April 2025, the Complainant referred complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission under the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015 and the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

 Firstly, the Complainant alleges that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment on the grounds of age and disability (Type 1 diabetes), including victimisation and a failure to provide reasonable accommodation. The issue of the Complainant’s disability and age disparity within the Respondent company was not disputed. The Complainant puts particular emphasis on an alleged incident in February 2025 in which he states that he was publicly belittled by a manager in front of a customer. I treated this as a harassment complaint which formed part of the greater equality complaint because the Complainant provided a detailed account of this alleged incident in his complaint form and submission documents.   He also raises broader concerns regarding working conditions, including the lack of adequate breaks, which he contends negatively impacted his health and resulted in a period of medically certified leave from March 2025.

Secondly, the Complainant alleges issues in relation to the payment of wages, specifically a lack of transparency and delays in the payment of tips and gratuities, together with a failure to provide payslips and adequate payroll information. He contends that he was required to repeatedly seek clarification regarding his pay and that this caused financial uncertainty and stress.

The Respondent denies all allegations, maintaining that the Complainant was treated appropriately, and that no discrimination occurred. The Respondent further contends that all wages and tips due were paid in accordance with company practices.

CA-000 Equality Claim (Age and Disability) CA-00070709-001:

The Complainant gave evidence that he is 55 years of age and has Type 1 diabetes, a condition requiring careful management, including regular breaks and stable working conditions. He said that outside of the bar manager, all the other staff are considerably younger and healthier than him, to his knowledge.   He stated that the Respondent was aware of his condition but failed to take appropriate steps to accommodate it in the organisation of his working time.

The Complainant identified a specific incident on 21 February 2025 as central to his complaint. On that occasion, he stated that he had been working for over five hours without a break, performing multiple duties including serving customers, clearing tables, and processing payments. During this shift, he alleges that the Respondent’s director made a disparaging remark about him in the presence of a customer. A customer was waiting for a drink, whilst the Complainant was tasked with collecting payment for a meal with customers at a table. The Complainant returned to the bar area and was standing behind Mr Barry Hennessy, the Director of the Respondent company, whom the Complainant alleges told the waiting customer “Ah never mind him, he doesn’t be with it half the time.”  The Complainant stated that this comment was made openly and within earshot of both himself and the customer. He described it as humiliating and damaging to his dignity, particularly in circumstances where he was already physically strained due to the absence of a break and the demands of the shift.

Following this incident, the Complainant gave evidence that he attempted to address the matter directly with Mr Hennessy some days later, on his day off, when he drove in especially to speak to Mr Hennessy about the incident in question. The Complainant described approaching him informally near the kitchen area and asking whether there was anything wrong with his (the Complainant’s) performance. According to the Complainant, he was told there were “one or two things” but no specifics were provided, and no apology or clarification was offered. He stated that this interaction left him uncertain and did not resolve his concerns.

The Complainant further referred to another occasion involving a busy shift where staff from the nearby Castlemartyr Resort were on a night out at the premises. He stated that this was a particularly demanding shift during which he was required to work continuously for a prolonged period without any opportunity to take a break. He described this as part of a broader pattern whereby breaks were not facilitated, despite the physical demands of the role and his medical condition. He said that on that occasion he had to ask Mr Hennessy for a break after working over six hours. The Complainant’s evidence was that these incidents formed part of a wider pattern of workplace stressors, including insufficient breaks, lack of clarity regarding expectations, and what he perceived as a lack of regard for his condition. He stated that the cumulative effect of these matters caused significant stress and had a direct impact on his health.

The Complainant maintains that the treatment he experienced, including the February 2025 incident and the broader working conditions, amounted to discriminatory treatment on the grounds of age and disability, and that the Respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of his condition.

2. Payment of Wages / Tips Issue CA-00070709-002:

The Complainant gave evidence that the dispute initially arose in relation to concerns about the payment, timing, and transparency of tips and gratuities, as well as the provision of payslips.

He stated that he first became concerned in or around November 2024, when he queried a payment which he believed was incorrect. He was informed that part of the payment related to credit card tips which were to be processed through payroll. However, he stated that he did not receive clear or consistent information regarding how tips were calculated or distributed.

The Complainant outlined that he did not receive regular payslips and had to repeatedly request them. While he was informed that payslips would be issued weekly, he stated that he did not receive a complete or consistent record of his pay.

By February 2025, he was informed that certain credit card tips had not been received or processed for several months. This led him to believe that earnings due to him had not been properly paid or accounted for, and he stated that this issue marked the point at which his wages complaint became apparent.

He gave evidence that he raised these concerns with management and sought documentation, including payslips, a tip policy, and a breakdown of his entitlements. He stated that responses were delayed and that he had to persist in seeking clarification.

Although he acknowledged that outstanding gratuities were eventually processed and paid through payroll in March 2025, he emphasised that this occurred only after he had escalated the matter. He stated: “My point is not simply that payment came late… I had to chase and escalate to get basic transparency and payment.”

The Complainant further stated that, notwithstanding the eventual payments, he remained unclear as to how his earnings were calculated and did not have sufficient documentation to verify what he had been paid.

He contends that the delays, lack of transparency, and absence of payslips caused financial uncertainty and contributed significantly to the stress he experienced during his employment, which in turn impacted his health and his ability to continue working.

CA-000 Equality Claim (Age and Disability) CA-00070709-001:

Mr Barry Hennessy, Director of the Respondent company, gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent and denied that any discriminatory treatment occurred.

In relation to the alleged incident on 21 February 2025, Mr Hennessy disputed the Complainant’s characterisation of the exchange. His evidence was that the interaction arose in the context of a busy service period and involved an exchange with a customer who was waiting for a drink. He stated that his focus at the time was on addressing the customer’s query and ensuring service was maintained. The witnesses’ position was that any comment made was not intended to refer to the Complainant in a derogatory or personal manner, but rather formed part of a brief interaction, more in a jovial lighter manner, aimed at managing the customer’s expectations in a busy environment. The witness suggested that any remark, if made, was taken out of context by the Complainant and did not reflect any assessment of his competence or state.

The witness further contended that there was no intention to undermine or belittle the Complainant and that the interaction must be viewed in light of the fast-paced and informal nature of bar service. The witness maintained that such exchanges could occur in the course of managing customers and do not, of themselves, amount to harassment or discriminatory conduct.

In relation to the Complainant’s subsequent approach to him, the witness accepted that an informal conversation took place but maintained that no formal complaint was raised. It was contended that the Complainant did not articulate any allegation of harassment or discrimination at that time and that no issue was escalated through the company’s grievance procedures.

In respect of working conditions, including breaks, the Respondent’s evidence was that the business operates in a typical hospitality environment where demand fluctuates and break times may vary depending on operational requirements. It was not accepted that the Complainant was treated differently to other staff or that he was denied breaks in a manner connected to any protected ground.

The Respondent also relied on its internal policies, including its equal opportunities and grievance procedures, as evidence that appropriate mechanisms were in place to address any workplace concerns.

2. Payment of Wages / Tips Issue CA-00070709-002:

In relation to the payment of wages, tips, and gratuities, Mr Hennessy gave evidence that the Respondent operated a structured system whereby tips were collected and subsequently processed through payroll. He accepted that queries were raised by the Complainant in relation to tips and payslips but oy maintained that all monies due were ultimately paid. The Respondent’s position was that any delays arose due to administrative or third-party factors and were not the result of any deliberate withholding of wages. He said that this matter affected all staff, not just the Complainant.

Summary of the Respondent’s Legal Submission.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination within the meaning of the Employment Equality Acts.

It relies on the following authorities:

• Melbury Developments Ltd v Valpeters [2010] ELR 64.
• Mitchell v Southern Health Board [2001] ELR 201.

The Respondent argues that the Complainant has not provided basic facts that would allow anyone to conclude that discrimination took place. They say that no proper comparator has been identified and that there is no evidence showing that any of the treatment complained of was connected to the Complainant’s age or disability.

Regarding the alleged incident on 21 February 2025, the Respondent states that the facts are disputed. They add that even if the comment was made to a customer, it would not reach the legal standard required for harassment under the Acts.

On the issue of reasonable accommodation, the Respondent says that no specific request for accommodation was ever made, and therefore no refusal of such a request has been shown.

In relation to victimisation, the Respondent submits that there is no evidence of a protected act followed by negative treatment.

Concerning the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the Respondent argues that section 6 only applies to unlawful deductions or unpaid wages. They say the Complainant has not identified any unpaid sum, and that complaints about payslips or transparency are outside the Adjudication Officer’s powers.

For all of these reasons, the Respondent says that the complaints are not well founded and should be dismissed.

CA-000 Equality Claim (Age and Disability) CA-00070709-001:

The reprovisions of the Employment Equality Acts in its relevant parts are as follows;

 6.Discrimination for the purposes of this Act

(1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the “discriminatory grounds”) which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(b) a person who is associated with another person—

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination.]

(2) As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are—

…(f)that they are of different ages, but subject to subsection (3) (in this Act referred to as ‘the age ground’)

(g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (in this Act referred to as “the disability ground”),

Section 2 of the Acts defines disability as follows:

“disability” means—

(a) the total or partial absence of a person's bodily or mental functions, including the absence of a part of a person's body,

(b) the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to cause, chronic disease or illness,

(c) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person's body,

(d) a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning differently from a person without the condition or malfunction, or

(e) a condition, illness or disease which affects a person's thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour,

and shall be taken to include a disability which exists at present, or which previously existed but no longer exists, or which may exist in the future or which

Reasonable accommodation on the grounds of disability is provided for under 16 (3) of the EEA where it states:

(a) For the purposes of this Act a person who has a disability is fully competent to undertake, and fully capable of undertaking, any duties if the person would be so fully competent and capable on reasonable accommodation (in this subsection referred to as ‘appropriate measures’) being provided by the person’s employer.

(b) The employer shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person who has a disability—

(i) to have access to employment,

(ii) to participate or advance in employment, or

(iii)to undergo training,

unless the measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the

employer.

(c) In determining whether the measures would impose such a burden account shall be taken, in particular, of—

(i) the financial and other costs entailed,

(ii) the scale and financial resources of the employer’s business, and

(iii)the possibility of obtaining public funding or other assistance.

31. The term ‘appropriate measures’ is then defined in section 16(4) as follows:

4) In subsection (3) -

‘appropriate measures,’ in relation to a person with a disability—

a. means effective and practical measures, where needed in a particular case, to adapt the employer’s place of business to the disability concerned,

b. without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), includes the adaptation of premises and equipment, patterns of working time, distribution of tasks or the provision of training or integration resources, but

 c. does not include any treatment, facility or thing that the person might ordinarily or reasonably provide for himself or herself;

14A.Harassment and Sexual Harassment

For the purposes of this Act, where—

(a) an employee (in this section referred to as “the victim”) is harassed or sexually harassed either at a place where the employee is employed (in this section referred to as “the workplace”) or otherwise in the course of his or her employment by a person who is—

(i) employed at that place or by the same employer,

(ii) the victim's employer, or

(iii) a client, customer or other business contact of the victim's employer and the circumstances of the harassment are such that the employer ought reasonably to have taken steps to prevent it, or

(b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a)—

(i) such harassment has occurred, and

(ii) either—

(I) the victim is treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of his or her employment by reason of rejecting or accepting the harassment, or

(II) it could reasonably be anticipated that he or she would be so treated, the harassment or sexual harassment constitutes discrimination by the victim's employer in relation to the victim's conditions of employment.

(2) If harassment or sexual harassment of the victim by a person other than his or her employer would, but for this subsection, be regarded as discrimination by the employer under subsection (1), it is a defence for the employer to prove that the employer took such steps as are reasonably practicable—

(a) in a case where subsection (1)(a) applies (whether or not subsection (1)(b) also applies), to prevent the person from harassing or sexually harassing the victim or any class of persons which includes the victim, and

(b) in a case where subsection (1)(b) applies, to prevent the victim from being treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of the victim's employment and, if and so far as any such treatment has occurred, to reverse its effects.

(3) A person's rejection of, or submission to, harassment or sexual harassment may not be used by an employer as a basis for a decision affecting that person.

(4) The reference in subsection (1)(a)(iii) to a client, customer or other business contact of the victim's employer includes a reference to any other person with whom the employer might reasonably expect the victim to come into contact in the workplace or otherwise in the course of his or her employment.

(5) In this section “employee” includes an individual who is—

(a) seeking or using any service provided by an employment agency, and

(b) participating in any course or facility referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 12(1),

and accordingly any reference to the individual's employer includes a reference to the employment agency providing the service or, as the case may be, the person offering or providing the course or facility.

(6) Where subsection (5) applies in relation to a victim, subsection (1) shall have effect as if for “in relation to the victim's conditions of employment” there were substituted “contrary to section 11”, or, as the case may be, section 12.

(7) (a) In this section—

(i) references to harassment are to any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds, and

(ii) references to sexual harassment are to any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature,

(b) being conduct which in either case has the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.

(c) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), such unwanted conduct may consist of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material.

The burden of proof is on the Complainant to present, in the first instance, facts from which it can be inferred that he was treated less favourably on the discriminatory ground cited. Section 85A of the Act states as follows:

(1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

(2) This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to a complainant.

(3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Commission to the Director General] under section 85(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Commission from which it may be presumed that an action or a failure mentioned in a paragraph of that provision has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

(4) In this section “discrimination” includes—

(a) indirect discrimination,

(b) victimisation,

(c) harassment or sexual harassment,

(d) the inclusion in a collective agreement to which section 9 applies of a provision which, by virtue of that section, is null and void.

In Arturs Valpeters v Melbury Developments Ltd 21 (2010) ELR 64 the Labour Court gave guidance on how the above section is to be interpreted.:

“Section 85A of the Act provides for the allocation of the probative burden in cases within its ambit. This requires that the complainant first establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred. What those facts are will vary from case to case and there is no closed category of facts which can be relied upon. All that is required is that they be of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination. However, they must be established as facts on credible evidence. Mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn. Section 85A places the burden of establishing the primary facts fairly and squarely on the complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule.”  

Under section 85A of the Acts, once a complainant establishes primary facts suggesting harassment or discrimination, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent.

It is not contested that the Complainant had a disability nor that there was a major age disparity between the operative staff and the Complainant. I will now deal with the prima facie test for each of the dimensions of the Acts which the Complainant has submitted.

Harassment:

Having carefully considered the oral and written evidence of both parties, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the incident complained of by the Complainant occurred substantially as described. In reaching this conclusion, I prefer the evidence of the Complainant in relation to the events of 21 February 2025. The Complainant gave a clear and consistent account of the interaction, including the words used and the surrounding circumstances, namely that he had been working for a prolonged period without a break and that the remark was made publicly to a customer, within earshot of the Complainant.

By contrast, while Mr Hennessy did not accept that the remark was intended in a derogatory manner, I note that there was no categorical denial that the interaction, or words to similar effect, occurred. Rather, the Respondent’s evidence was that any such comment, if made, was taken out of context and formed part of a customer interaction in a busy service environment. This falls short of a direct rebuttal of the Complainant’s account and, in my view, lends weight to the Complainant’s version of events. I am satisfied that this remark – “Ah never mind him, he doesn’t be with it half the time”- would be interpreted by any reasonable person as relating to age or ailment, or both. I am satisfied that such a remark was inappropriate in a workplace context and was capable of undermining the Complainant’s dignity. The Complainant gave evidence that his full cognitive ability was affected if he did not have a break at an appropriate time.

In assessing whether this conduct amounts to harassment within the meaning of the Employment Equality Acts, I am mindful that harassment is defined as unwanted conduct related to a protected ground which has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. The test includes a subjective element, namely the effect of the conduct on the Complainant. In this regard, I accept the Complainant’s evidence that he experienced the remark as humiliating and distressing. He described the incident as damaging to his dignity and confidence at work, and I am satisfied that this reaction was both genuine and reasonable in the circumstances.

The Respondent’s own Dignity at Work policy is also of relevance. That policy expressly identifies inappropriate conduct such as: “insensitive jokes and pranks” as falling within the scope of unacceptable behaviour. In my view, the remark in question, even if characterised by the Respondent as informal, jovial, or offhand, falls within the type of conduct contemplated by this provision. The Respondent’s own standards therefore reinforce the conclusion that such behaviour is not acceptable in the workplace.

I further note the manner in which the matter was addressed when raised by the Complainant. The Complainant gave evidence that he approached Mr Hennessy informally following the incident to seek clarification. I accept that this interaction took place. The response, as described, was vague and non-specific, and no meaningful explanation, apology, or engagement with the concern was provided. In my view, this reflects a lack of appropriate awareness and training at management level in dealing with complaints of this nature. The failure to recognise the seriousness of the issue and to respond in a considered and constructive manner is a relevant factor in assessing the overall working environment.

Taking all of the above into account, I am satisfied that: the remark complained of occurred; it constituted unwanted conduct; it was capable of, and did in fact, violate the Complainant’s dignity; and it created a humiliating and offensive environment for the Complainant.

 I am satisfied the Complainant established primary facts that he was subjected to harassment within the meaning of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2105 on age and disability grounds and that the Respondent did not rebut this presumption. Furthermore, the Respondent did not demonstrate that it had taken any practicable steps to prevent harassment. There was no evidence of equality or disability training for management, nor any procedure for responding sensitively to a disclosure of disability. In fact, the evidence shows that Mr Hennessy did not adequately deal with the incident reported to him.

The incident was isolated but public and distressing for the Complainant. Taking into account the nature of the conduct, its impact on the complainant which occurred in front of a person known to him in the community, I consider that compensation in the sum of €10,000 is fair, proportionate, and effective.

In addition, I direct the Respondent to arrange equality and disability-awareness training for all managerial and supervisory staff within six months of this decision, with particular emphasis on the handling of disability disclosures and the prevention of workplace harassment.

Reasonable Accommodation:

The Complainant contends that the Respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of his disability, namely Type 1 diabetes, contrary to section 16 of the Employment Equality Acts.

In order to succeed in such a claim, the Complainant must establish a prima facie case. This requires evidence that the employer was aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, of the disability, that the employee required accommodation in order to perform the duties of the role, and that the employer failed to take appropriate measures in response.

Having considered all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Complainant has met this threshold. I accept that the Complainant has Type 1 diabetes and that this constitutes a disability within the meaning of the Acts. I also accept that the Respondent had, at least, constructive knowledge of this condition. However, I find that the Complainant did not formally disclose the nature or extent of his condition in any meaningful way, nor did he communicate that specific accommodations were required to enable him to perform his duties. The evidence indicates that the Complainant largely managed his condition independently throughout his employment. On his own account, his condition did not significantly interfere with his ability to conduct his role on a day-to-day basis. There is no evidence that he experienced ongoing difficulty in performing his duties arising from his condition, nor that he sought adjustments to his working arrangements.

The Complainant did refer to one occasion during an exceptionally busy shift where he requested a break. I accept that this occurred in a demanding work environment. However, I do not consider that this single instance is sufficient to establish a failure by the Respondent to provide reasonable accommodation within the meaning of section 16. In particular, I find no evidence of any pattern of refusal or denial of accommodations, nor any indication that the Respondent was placed on notice that specific measures were required on an ongoing basis. There is also no evidence that the Complainant was prevented from conducting his role due to the absence of such accommodations.

While I have accepted that the Complainant worked extended periods without breaks on occasion, I consider that this reflects the operational demands of a busy hospitality environment rather than a failure to provide reasonable accommodation. The statutory duty on an employer arises where it is clear that adjustments are required to enable the employee to participate fully in employment. In this case, I am not satisfied that the Respondent was placed on such notice.

In all of the circumstances, I find that the Complainant has not established facts from which it may be inferred that the Respondent failed to comply with its obligations under section 16 of the Acts. Accordingly, the complaint of failure to provide reasonable accommodation is not well founded.

Victimisation:

When it was explained to the Complainant that “Victimisation” under the Acts refers to penalising a person because they have made a complaint under the Acts or they have been involved in proceedings (e.g., as a witness) or they have opposed actions that would contravene the Act. The Complainant accepted that he had no evidence to suggest that the Respondent victimised him therefore I find that the Complainant did not establish a prima facie case that he was victimised under the Act.

Terms and Conditions of Employment.

The Complainant seemed to suggest that he was alone in being denied access to information on tips and gratuities which resulted in a late payment of monies due. However, the Respondent gave uncontested evidence that this issue affected all staff therefore the Complainant did not establish primary facts to show discrimination in this regard.

2. Payment of Wages / Tips Issue CA-00070709-002:

6(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 states:

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—

the net amount of the wages, or tips or gratuities as the case may be] (after the making of any lawful deductions 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 presented to paragraph (a), twice the former amount.

(2) (a) An adjudication officer shall not give a decision referred to in subsection (1) in relation to a deduction or payment referred to in that subsection at any time after the commencement of hearing of proceedings in a court brought by the employee concerned in respect of the deduction or payment.

(b) An employee shall not be entitled to recover any amount in proceedings in a court in respect of such a deduction or payment as aforesaid at any time after an adjudication officer has given a decision referred to in subsection (1) in relation to the deduction or payment.

After considering all of the evidence presented, I am satisfied that the complaint of an unlawful deduction of wages relating to tips and gratuities is not well founded. The Complainant did not show that any specific amount of money was owed or withheld. No net figure was identified, and no documentation was produced to demonstrate that a shortfall existed.

The Respondent, on the other hand, gave clear and uncontested evidence that all tips and gratuities due to staff were paid. They explained that a delay had occurred because of administrative issues involving a third‑party owner, but that these issues were not within their direct control and were ultimately resolved, with all outstanding monies issued.

Concerns raised by the Complainant about transparency, communication, or the absence of payslips fall outside the scope of what an Adjudication Officer can decide under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act. That section deals only with whether an unlawful deduction from wages has been made, and it does not give the Adjudication Officer jurisdiction over record‑keeping or general employment practices.

The Respondent also provided a credible explanation of how tips are allocated, describing a matrix system that distributes tips proportionately based on hours worked and the nature of duties performed. No evidence was presented to contradict this.

Taking all of this into account, I find no basis on which to conclude that any deduction took place. For these reasons, the complaint is not well founded.

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.

CA-000 Equality Claim (Age and Disability) CA-00070709-001: In accordance with section 79(6) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015, I find that the complainant was harassed on the ground of disability and age, contrary to section 14A of the Acts. I find no evidence of victimisation, in his terms or conditions of employment nor in a failure to provide reasonable accommodation.

The Respondent is directed to pay the complainant the sum of €10,000 in compensation for the effects of the harassment and to ensure that all managerial staff complete appropriate equality and disability-awareness training within six months of the date of this decision.

Payment of Wages / Tips Issue CA-00070709-002: For the reasons outlined above, I find the complaint was not well founded.

Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015. Age. Disability. Harassment. Victimisation. Reasonable Accommodation. Tips. Gratuities. Payment of Wages Act 1991.