Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Dayna  Carey

All Dogs Go To Fetch Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

No Appearance

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000

CA-00074578-001

20/08/2025

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

CA-00074578-002

20/08/2025

The Complainant commenced employment on 15 July 2024. She was initially paid an hourly rate of pay and, in or around late December 2024, her rate of pay was changed to a daily rate of €140 gross. This complaint concerns an alleged failure by the Respondent to pay wages due to the Complainant during her employment.

The Complainant submits that, for various dates from 7 March 2025 onwards, the Respondent failed to pay her wages properly due, resulting in significant arrears. She states that, by 13 June 2025, the total sum outstanding amounted to €5,072.39.

The Complainant outlines that from 17 June 2025, the Respondent began making payments towards this amount, including payments in cash and via Revolut. However, she maintains that these payments were irregular and incomplete, and that a balance of €4,173.12 remained outstanding.

The Complainant states that she raised the issue of unpaid wages with the Respondent on multiple occasions throughout this period. On 6 August 2025, she formally expressed her dissatisfaction, citing the ongoing non-payment of wages, the methods of payment being used for her and other staff, poor communication, conflicting information from one of the Respondent’s Directors and her former partner, and repeated assurances regarding payment dates which were not fulfilled.

She submits that she was informed that wages due on Friday 8 August 2025 would be paid to her bank account and that the outstanding balance would be cleared by Thursday 14 August 2025. While she received a wage payment on 12 August 2025, following further contact with the Respondent, she states that the outstanding sum of €4,173.12 was not paid as promised.

The Complainant further submits that she contacted the Respondent on 14 August 2025 and again on 15 August 2025 regarding the outstanding payment, but that these communications were not acknowledged. She states that she informed the Respondent that, in the absence of payment, she would have no alternative but to refer the matter to the WRC.

As of 19 August 2025, the Complainant maintains that the outstanding amount remained unpaid and she referred the complaint to the WRC on 20 August 2025.

The Respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing of this complaint. Having reviewed the file I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the claim against it and the hearing date, time and login arrangements. I waited a reasonable time before proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Respondent.

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted to the WRC and the oral evidence adduced at the hearing summarised above.

CA-00074578-001

The complaint under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 arises from the same factual matrix as the complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Having regard to my findings below in relation to unpaid wages, and in circumstances where the Complainant’s hourly remuneration, when properly calculated, is addressed through the Payment of Wages Act redress, I am satisfied that no separate contravention of the 2000 Act requiring distinct redress has been established.

CA-00074578-002

In considering whether the Complainant’s wages were the subject of an unlawful deduction as alleged, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 as amended (hereinafter referred to as “the 1991 Act”).

Section 1 of the 1991 Act provides the following definition of wages:

"wages", in relation to an employee, means 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:

…

This definition encompasses all sums payable in connection with employment, including wages calculated by reference to time worked.

Section 5 of the 1991 Act serves to regulate certain deductions made and payments received by employers.

Section 5(1) of the 1991 Act provides 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.

Section 5(6) of the 1991 Act addresses the circumstances in which wages which are properly payable are not paid:

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.

Accordingly, where wages which are properly payable are not paid, this constitutes a deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act.

In Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55, the High Court made it clear that the WRC, when considering a complaint under the 1991 Act, must first establish the wages which were properly payable to the employee before considering whether a deduction had been made. Only where such wages are established does the question arise as to whether there has been a deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act.

The Complainant was a credible and reliable witness. She gave clear and consistent evidence regarding the hours worked, the sums due to her, and the failure of the Respondent to discharge those sums despite repeated assurances. In circumstances where the Respondent did not attend the hearing or adduce any evidence to contradict the Complainant’s account, I accept her evidence.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was not paid the wages that were properly payable to her and that she has established her claim to the total gross wages of €4,173.12 under the 1991 Act. I therefore find that the non-payment of these sums constitutes an unlawful deduction within the meaning of section 5 of the 1991 Act.

CA-00074578-001

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

CA-00074578-002

Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the complaint is well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €4,173.12, being the amount of the unlawful deduction, subject to any lawful deductions.