Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Inge Lisa

Redhills Adventure Ltd

Representatives

Self-represented

Tormeys Solicitors LLP

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-00071849-001

24/05/2025

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

CA-00071849-005

24/05/2025

The complaints under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, referred to the Commission on 24 May 2025, were that the respondent had not paid the complainant or had paid the complainant less than the amount due, and of an unlawful deduction from wages.

Both complaints detailed the date payment ought to have been received and the date of deduction as 30 April 2025.

CA-00071849-001

This complaint is of €4,592.75 wages not received and of €1,190.00 holiday pay not received, which sums relate to compensation for additional hours, annual leave and other entitlements.

The complaint detailed extra, unpaid daily working time in May and June 2024, uncompensated Saturday and Sunday working time during an event in October 2024, unpaid hours over a 10-week period from February 2024 to April 2024 to mitigate an IT issue described as ongoing as of 21 May 2025 and unpaid annual leave hours.  Unpaid sick leave in July 2023 and payslip discrepancies in July 2023 and October 2024 contributed to the total underpayment the subject of this complaint.

The unpaid amounts were due on the monthly pay dates from May 2022 to April 2025.

The complainant sought a sum to mitigate the long-term financial loss arising in connection with social insurance adjustments required.

CA-00071849-005

This complaint is of an unlawful deduction of €2,000.00 on 30 April 2025. 

The complaint concerns an alleged overpayment claim by the respondent and how it was handled. 

The respondent’s director contacted the complainant on 24 April 2025 about an alleged overpayment in February 2024, 14 months earlier.   The complainant was shocked as she had no prior notice of any overpayment. 

The respondent agreed to waive the claim, accepting it was the respondent’s error and acknowledged it was missed by the complainant.  The complainant consented on condition of a statement of particulars about the overpayment and tax breakdown.  The respondent then retracted and threatened legal action to recover the amount. 

The claim to repay is unfair due to the delay, absence of proof and the retraction of the initial waiver.  The complainant sought dismissal of the overpayment claim or that it be treated as a notional payment, with relevant declarations and all taxes and PRSI adjusted at no cost to the complainant.

There was an active wages dispute at the time of termination of employment such that the matter falls within jurisdiction. 

The respondent entirely rejects the complainant’s complaints under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

The respondent made no deduction for overpayment in the manner asserted and the complainant was paid all outstanding monies due to her on 30 April 2025 when the complainant’s employment with the respondent ended.

There is no deduction complained of during the cognisable period.

The respondent seeks a preliminary determination of its application pursuant to section 42 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 to dismiss both complaints under the 1991 Act.

CA-00071849-005

The complainant expressly acknowledges that no deduction occurred in respect of an overpayment.  The complainant has no locus standi to pursue this claim where no deduction has been made.  Notwithstanding a contractual right on the part of the respondent to recoup any overpayment of wages, the respondent did not seek to recoup and has not instituted legal proceedings in respect of an overpayment to the complainant of €2,000.00 in February 2024, which was brought to the respondent’s attention by its accountant on 22 April 2025. 

The complaints under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the “1991 Act”) were referred to the Commission on 24 May 2025.

Section 42 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (the “2015 Act”) provides:-

“(1) An adjudication officer may, at any time, dismiss a complaint or dispute referred to him or her under section 41 if he or she is of the opinion that it is frivolous or vexatious.

(2) (a) A person whose complaint or dispute is dismissed in accordance with this section may, not later than 42 days from its dismissal, appeal the dismissal to the Labour Court.

(b) A person shall, when bringing an appeal under this subsection, give notice to the Commission in writing of the bringing of the appeal.

(c) A notice referred to in paragraph (b) shall specify the grounds upon which the appeal is brought.

(3) Upon the hearing of an appeal under this section, the Labour Court may—

(a) affirm the decision of the adjudication officer dismissing the complaint or dispute concerned, or

(b) annul that decision and refer the complaint or dispute to the Director General.”

The within complaints are complaints of a contravention of section 5 of the 1991 Act, which is a provision specified in Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the 2015 Act, referred to me under section 41 of the that Act.

Having heard from the parties on matters material to the complaints, which matters are uncontested, and having regard to the nature of the complaints under the 1991 Act and my jurisdiction under that Act, I consider it convenient and appropriate to determine at this time the preliminary application and to dismiss the complaints under section 42 of the 2015 Act for the reasons set out below.

CA-00071849-001

The complainant advised at the hearing that she was not pursuing the holiday/annual leave pay aspect of this complaint and further that she was paid for an October 2024 event.

The complainant submitted that extra hours she was directed and required to work outside of her usual contracted hours of work from 2024 was ongoing and continued right up to the time of termination of employment on 30 April 2025.

In response to my questions, the complainant clarified that an IT issue was ongoing in May 2025 but that her complaint of unpaid wages did not concern the period after 10 April 2024.  The complainant further stated that the complaint did not concern unpaid wages in the six-month period prior to the referral of the complaint to the WRC.

Section 41(6) of the 2015 Act provides:-

“ (6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.”

Section 41(8) allows for an extension of the above-mentioned 6-month timeframe by a further 6 months where I am satisfied that failure to present the complaint within the initial 6-month period was due to reasonable cause.

On the complainant’s own account, the within complaint does not concern an alleged contravention occurring within the 6-month period prior to referral of the complaint to the WRC.  I am not satisfied of reasonable cause to entertain any complaint of underpayment for work in May and June 2024.  Furthermore, the complainant’s submission that the complaints “arise from three years of employment and concern unpaid work payroll discrepancies” is incompatible with section 41(6) of the 2015 Act which provides for the statutory timeframe running from the date of contravention to which the complaint relates.  For completeness, a complaint in respect of unpaid hours over a 10-week period from 1 February 2024 is wholly outside of my jurisdiction under the 1991 Act.

In the circumstances, this complaint is bound to fail.  My opinion therefore is that the complaint is a frivolous complaint within the meaning of section 42 of the 2015 Act, and my decision is to dismiss the complaint on this basis.

CA-00071849-005

The complaint concerns the respondent’s handling of an alleged overpayment to the complainant.  The complainant submits that the issue is whether the respondent’s handling of the circumstances was transparent and procedurally fair.   The complainant further submits that there are requirements in the legislation about how a deduction is handled, and the respondent did not adhere to same.

The complainant accepts that no deduction occurred in respect of any overpayment. 

The complainant requests an opportunity to present her case, to tender evidence regarding the overpayment and that I apply the spirit of the legislation.  The complainant further submits that where there is a live dispute regarding statutory compliance or proposed recovery, the matter falls within jurisdiction. 

The complaint referred under section 6 of the 1991 is of an unlawful deduction in breach of section 5 of the 1991 Act.  Section 5 regulates deductions made and payments received by employers.  The complainant is correct in her submission that deductions by an employer are regulated by the 1991 Act, notably where the deduction is in respect of any act or omission of the employee or any necessary goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee. This is not such a case.  More significant is the fact that the complainant accepts that the respondent did not make any deduction for an overpayment issue it raised with the complainant on 24 April 2025.  Not only had there been no deduction at the time of referral of the complaint to the WRC, it was also accepted by the complainant that there was no deduction in the period thereafter.

Section 5(6) of the 1991 Act addresses the meaning of a deduction as a deficiency in wages or non-payment of wages properly payable to the employee on any occasion.

I do not have a jurisdiction under the 1991 to adjudicate on the respondent’s handling of an overpayment issue in circumstances where the respondent did not in fact make any deduction.

Based on the foregoing, I find this complaint to be misconceived and bound to fail.  My opinion therefore is that the complaint is a frivolous complaint within the meaning of section 42 of the 2015 Act, and my decision is to dismiss the complaint on this basis.

CA-00071849-001 (Payment of Wages Act 1991)

For the reasons set out above, my decision is to dismiss the complaint because of my opinion that it is frivolous.

CA-00071849-005 (Payment of Wages Act 1991)

For the reasons set out above, my decision is to dismiss the complaint because of my opinion that it is frivolous.

Payment of Wages – Cognisable period – Deduction – Overpayment – Frivolous or vexatious – Dismissal of complaints