Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Anthony  Tamai

Innvik Retail Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

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-00071445-001

09/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00071445-002

09/05/2025

The Complainant commenced Employment on 1st October 2024. At all relevant times the Complainant’s role was described as that of “baker”. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time member of staff, with his weekly salary forming the basis of the dispute between the parties.  The Complainant’s employment ended on 26th March 2025.

On 9th May 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaints to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that the Respondent made a series of illegal deduction from his wages and that they did not provide a weekly rest break on two occasions. In denying the former allegation, the Respondent stated that the Complainant received all wages owed under his contract of employment.  They also conceded that the Complainant did not receive his weekly rest period as alleged.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 24th October 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing. The Complainant gave evidence in support of his complaint, while a manager of the Respondent gave evidence in defence. All evidence was given under oath or examination and was opened to cross examination by the opposing side.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Complainant stated in evidence that he was engaged as a baker with the Respondent. Upon the conclusion of an Erasmus internship, the Respondent offered the Complainant a full-time employment contract. Following negotiations, the Complainant agreed to commence employment at a new premises scheduled to open in October 2024. In anticipation of commencing these duties, the Complainant relocated from his home country to an address in proximity to the proposed site.

On 1st October 2024, the Complainant signed a contract of employment, which outlined an annual gross salary of €50,600. Subsequently, the opening of the proposed site faced multiple delays. Consequently, the Complainant commenced his duties at an alternative site owned by the Respondent rather than the location originally intended.

On 26th March 2025, the Complainant elected to terminate his employment. Upon doing so, he observed several discrepancies regarding his wages throughout the period of employment. Specifically, the Complainant noted that his hourly rate of pay was incorrectly calculated. The Respondent based this calculation upon an incorrect annual salary of €47,000, as opposed to the actual contractual salary of €50,600. The Complainant asserted this was an error; while the letter of offer provided for a salary of €47,000 supplemented by a monthly bonus of €300, the contract of employment, as executed by the parties, provided for an annual salary of €50,600.  

The Complainant calculated that the discrepancy regarding overtime and public holidays totalled €754.23, while the total deficit for his tenure reached €1,759.80. Finally, the Complainant contended that he did not receive a weekly rest break on two occasions.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant received all wages due and owing throughout the course of his employment. In support of this, the Respondent presented the letter of employment issued to the Complainant, which confirmed a salary of €47,000 per annum. The Respondent referred to the Complainant’s pay slips, which demonstrated consistent weekly payments of €904. Regarding the alleged salary of €50,600, the Respondent maintained that the agreement stipulated a base salary of €47,000 supplemented by a monthly bonus of €300 for twelve months, creating a total of €50,600.

The Respondent asserted that the monthly bonus was paid during every month in which the Complainant worked, and in these circumstances no shortfall occurred. While the Complainant raised issues regarding the non-payment of overtime, the Respondent noted that this matter was rectified and paid prior to the hearing.

In relation to the complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, the Respondent accepted that the Complainant did not receive his weekly rest period on two occasions and conceded this portion of the claim.

Regarding the present case, the parties are in dispute regarding the calculation of payments, specifically concerning public holidays and the hourly rate for overtime. The core matter in dispute is that the Complainant asserted that he signed a contract stipulating an annual salary of €50,600, from which his hourly rate should be calculated, while the Respondent maintained the salary was comprised of a €47,000 base plus bonuses. The Complainant submitted that the incorrect payment of certain allowances calculated by reference to his hourly rate of pay, itself calculated by reference to the annual salary, led to an unlawful deduction from his wages.

In this regard, Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, defines “wages” as “any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including…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”

In the matter of Marek Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd [2019 No. 83 MCA], McGrath J stated that when considering complaints under the present Act,

“Central to the Court’s analysis must be the concepts of wages properly payable and the circumstances in which there is a deficiency in respect of those such payments”.

The contract of employment, opened by the parties, clearly stated that the Complainant is entitled to an annual salary of €50,600, without any further qualification. A contradiction arises when this is compared the letter of offer, which provides for an annual salary of €47,000 base plus a monthly bonus of €300, creating a potential annual payment of €50,600. While both these documents create an equal rate of pay over the course of a year, on the assumption that the Complainant received the bonus each month, the difference in the base salary creates a discrepancy in the calculation of an hourly rate of pay.   

In this regard, any ambiguity in the documentation provided by the Respondent must be construed against the author of the same. Having regard to the foregoing, I find was in favour of the Complainant, and it is noted that his correct contractual rate of pay was €50,600 per annum. While the Complainant suffered no loss of earnings during his normal course of employment, as the bonus was paid for each month, the hourly rate used to calculate public holiday and overtime entitlement was incorrect.

By submission, the Complainant stated that he suffered an unlawful deduction of €754.23 arising from the error outlined above, and in consideration of the finding above I find that this portion or the complaint is well-founded. The Complainant further submitted that he was underpaid throughout his employment, however given that he received the bonus on each month, no shortfall in his normal wages arises.

Finally, as the Respondent conceded the allegation regarding rest periods, this complaint is also deemed to be well founded.

CA-00071445-001 Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act

I find that the complaint is well-founded. Regarding redress, I award the Complainant the sum of €754.23 in compensation.

CA-00071445-002 Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act

I find that the complaint is well-founded. Regarding redress, I award the Complainant the sum of €904.00 in compensation.

Annual salary, hourly rate, bonus