Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Lissandra  Perez Cardenas

Pradeshi Ltd T/A Anna Liffey

Representatives

 Self

N/A

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-00074722-001

22/08/2025

The Complainant submitted these complaints on 22nd August 2025 alleging that the Respondent had not given the required period of notice to terminate her employment.

A hearing was scheduled for 10.00am on Thursday 19th March 2026, however at the time the hearing was due to commence, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

The Complainant gave evidence on her own behalf, by way of civil affirmation, in relation to her complaint.

The Complainant says that her salary was €15 per hour and that her contract said that she was supposed to receive 30 hours per week. She described how, the week before she finished work, she received a message on the Monday saying that there had been a gas leak in the premises and not to attend the following day when she was due to work. She was told that she would be advised when it was ok to come back to work, but this never happened and the business never reopened.

At the hearing, the Complainant stated that her main issue is in relation to the reduction in the hours she was promised of 30 hours per week, which was reduced to zero because the business was not open, and not receiving any notice pay.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. Notice of the hearing arrangements was sent to the registered address of the Respondent company on 14th January 2026. This was followed up with further letters to the Respondent’s registered address dated 10th March 2026 and 16th March 2026. No communication was received from the Respondent in response to any correspondence connected with this complaint.

At the outset of the hearing, when it was apparent that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent, I waited some time to accommodate any late arrival.

I verified that the hearing notification letter had been sent to the company’s registered address and noted that it had not been returned as undelivered.

In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the hearing but chose not to attend.

The complaint form submitted by the Complainant on 22nd August 2025 states as follows:

“mylast week of employment in the already mention company was from 14th july- to 21st july, week which I wasnt able to work as my usual workplace was kept close without a fair notice, since then I have been asking him when would I get they payment for that week which Im entitled to get as the business was close for his own decision and without advice.”

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 states that an employee may present a complaint to the Director General that their employer has contravened a provision specified in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 5 of that Act. The Director General shall then refer the complaint for adjudication by an adjudication officer. This is how I have come to address the complaint above.

From a plain reading of the complaint form, it is clear that the sole issue raised relates to alleged non‑payment arising from what the Complainant characterises as a lack of “fair notice” and therefore entitlement to payment for the week of 14th July 2025 to 21st July 2025. No other matters were referred to the Director General, and accordingly this is the only issue over which I have jurisdiction.

While it is well established that the WRC complaint form is not a statutory form, its purpose is to identify the substance of the complaint so as to ensure fair procedures and put the employer on notice of the issues raised. In this case, the Complainant clearly asserted an entitlement to payment in respect of a notice period.

The Complainant selected the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 as the basis for redress. Ordinarily, a complaint relating to notice would fall under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, which contains its own statutory remedies. However, I am satisfied that it would have been clear to the Respondent from the complaint form that the essence of the claim concerned the alleged non‑payment of wages in lieu of notice.

I will address this complaint under the legislation selected by the Complainant, namely the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 states as follows:

“5. (1) 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.”

And

“5(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.”

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 was considered in Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55. In that case, MacGrath J. re-affirmed the proposition that the first matter to be determined is what wages are properly payable under the contract of employment. If it is established that a deduction within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 has been made from the wages properly payable, it is then necessary to consider whether that deduction was lawful. MacGrath J. stated at paragraphs 34 and 35 of the judgement:

“Section 5 of the Act of 1991 prohibits the making of deductions from wages save in certain circumstances. Section 5(6) provides that where 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, then, except insofar as the deficiency or non – payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non – payment should be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

Central to the court’s analysis must be the concepts of wages properly payable and the circumstances in which, if there is a deficiency in respect of those such payments, it arose as a result of an error of computation.”

MacGrath J. went on to consider the case of Dunnes Stores (Cornelscourt) Limited v. Lacey [2007] 1 IR 478 which contemplated the question of remuneration properly payable to an employee before considering the question of a deduction or whether a deduction was unlawful. Referring to that case he stated:

“This decision supports the proposition that the first matter which should be addressed by the Labour Court is to determine what wages are properly payable under the contract.”

In the first instance therefore, I must be satisfied what wages are properly payable to the Complainant. 

The Complainant says that she is entitled to one weeks wages in lieu of notice because the Respondent did not tell her that her employment was ending. For the purpose of determining if the Complainant had wages that were properly payable to her for any notice period, I will look at whether the Complainant has a statutory or contractual right to payment for a notice period.

The statutory right to a notice period is contained in the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973, which also contains it’s own remedies. Section 4 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973, as amended, provides as follows:

(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be—

(a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week,

(b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks,

(c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks, …”

As set out above, an employee must be in the continuous employment of the employer for a period of thirteen weeks or more in order to avail of the statutory minimum notice period.

The Complainant provided a copy of the first page of her contract of employment. The date on this contract was 12th May 2025. The Complainant also said that the date she put on her complaint form was her last day of work. That date is 21st July 2025. The Complainant acknowledged that she helped the Respondent set up the business in the weeks leading up to the opening, she was unclear whether she received wages for this period and cited a start date in her complaint form of 2nd June 2025.

Even taken at it’s very height, with a start date of 12th May 2025, the Complainant has, at most, 10 weeks continuous employment with the Respondent.

The Complainant therefore does not have the statutory thirteen weeks required in order to avail of the minimum notice periods set out in section 4 of the above Act. Consequently, she does not have a statutory entitlement to payment for the week 14th July 2025 to 21st July 2025.

I will now turn to whether the Complainant has a contractual right to a notice period. The contract of employment was not produced in full. I specifically asked whether the contract contained a notice clause applicable to her period of employment. The Complainant did not provide any further evidence of contractual terms beyond the first page. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the Complainant has any contractual right to a notice period relevant to her period of employment.

I therefore find that the Complainant has not demonstrated either a statutory or contractual entitlement to payment in lieu of notice for the period 14th July 2025 to 21st July 2025. Consequently, there were no wages properly payable to her for that period. For that reason, this complaint is not well founded.

For the reasons set out above, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

Minimum notice – continuous service requirement