Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Adrian  Hardiman

Noel Kelly Bus Hire

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00075243-001

08/09/2025

The Complainant commenced employment on 25th November 2024. At all relevant times the Complainant role was described as that of “Bus Driver”. The Complainant’s tenure was brief, with the employment terminating on 1st January 2025.

On 8th September 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that the Respondent failed to discharge his wages in contravention of the Act. By response, the Respondent denied this allegation on a factual basis, submitting that the Complainant had been properly paid for all works carried out.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 30th March 2026. 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.

The Complainant gave evidence in support of his complaint, while a managing director 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.

Following the referral of the complaint, a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction was identified by way of correspondence. Given that the substantive matter was relatively uncomplicated, this was considered alongside the substantive matter.

By submission, the Complainant stated that he was engaged as a bus driver for the Respondent on a casual basis. He stated that he worked for a total of 115.5 hours in late 2024 for the Respondent and did not receive any payment in respect of the same. The Complainant submitted that the total value of the non-paid wages was €2310.00. In addition to the foregoing, the Complainant submitted that he filled the bus with diesel on one occasion and was not re-imbursed for this expense.

The Complainant accepted that the present complaint was submitted in excess of the six-month statutory timeframe for the referral of such complaints. In this regard, the Complainant stated that he received numerous assurances from the Respondent that the matter would be resolved. He stated that only when the Respondent stopped responding to his queries in this regard, did he refer the present complaint. In this respect, the Complainant submitted that he had demonstrated reasonable cause to allow the relevant period to be extended.

In responding to the allegations raised by the Complainant, the Respondent denied the same on a factual basis. In this respect, he submitted that the Complainant had been paid for the work completed. In this regard, he stated that he left payment for the previous work completed by the Complainant in the vehicle when the same was allocated to him on a subsequent run.

Regarding the present complaint a direct conflict of evidence has arisen regarding the alleged non-payment of wages to the value of €2,310.00 to the Complainant. In this regard, the Complainant submitted that he did not receive payment in respect of the same, while the Respondent stated that payment was issued and, presumably, received by the Complainant.

At the outset of the hearing, the Complainant accepted that the present complaint was lodged in excess of six months from the date of the alleged contravention.  In this regard, Section 6(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that,

“…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.”

Thereafter, section 6(8) provides that,

“An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.”

In consideration of the forgoing, a distinction may be drawn between an individual seeking to resolve as issue by way of internal procedures or negotiating a compromise in relation to the same, and an individual receiving assurances from a Respondent that the subject matter of a complaint would be resolved. In the latter situation, it stands to reason that a complaint would not be filed, as an assurance has been received that the matter would be resolved without the need to involve a third-party organisation. In the present case, the Complainant referenced several text messages with the Respondent whereby he requested that payment be made. In circumstances whereby the Respondent did not provide evidence to contradict the Complainant’s version of events, I prefer his evidence and find that he has established reasonable cause in accordance with the legislative provision cited above.

Regarding the substantive matter, 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”.

In this regard the evidence of the Complainant was that he did not receive payment for work completed, while the evidence of the Respondent was that payment was left of the Complainant in one of the vehicles. In the normal course, if a Complainant alleged that they did not receive payment, a Respondent would refer to various payslips and, if necessary, bank transfers to disprove the allegation on non or under payment. In the present case, no such evidence has been provided, and, in these circumstances, I prefer the evidence of the Complainant. As a consequence of the foregoing, I find that the Complainant suffered an illegal deduction to the value of €2,310.00 from his wages, and the Complainant is deemed to be well-founded.

The Complainant further alleged that he did not receive payment of expenses incurred in the course of his duties. As expenses are expressly excluded from the definition of wages in Section 1, I find that the same should not be included in any subsequent award of compensation.

I find that the Complainant is well-founded.

Regarding redress, I award the Complainant the sum of €2,310.00 in compensation for the breach. This payment is to be subject all normal deductions as income.

Non-payment, extension of time