ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00063866

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Stephen Farrell	Nigel O’Leary trading as Khiron

Representatives

Complaint:

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-00077281-001	07/11/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/06/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 an employee can present a complaint or complaints of any perceived contravention by his or her Employer of any of the Acts (Statutes) contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015. Any such complaint (usually presented in the format of a workplace relations complaint form) is made to the Director General of the WRC. The said Director General can then refer the complaint to the Adjudication services. It is in these circumstances that this matter has come before me - an Adjudication Officer -engaged by the Adjudication division of the WRC to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or complaints made. Where appropriate, I hear the parties’ oral evidence, and I can give consideration to any supporting evidence provided by witnesses or relevant documentation.

In this instance the Complainant has brought a complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 and where such a complaint is presented the Director General is empowered to refer that complaint forward for adjudication to the Adjudication Officer aforesaid.

A complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act provides that an employer must pay wages that are properly payable to an employee. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.

By way of preliminary observation, I am satisfied that a Contract of Employment existed between the parties such that a wage defined by the 1991 Act was payable to the Employee by the Employer in connection with the employment. I further find that the Complainant’s Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 7th of November 2025 initially gives rise to a cognisable period starting from the 8th of May 2025 to the 7th of November 2025.

Background:

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 5th of April 2023. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. The Complainant gave an oral account of his interactions with the Employer.

The Complainant provided supporting documents when he first issued his complaint form.

The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which read as follows:

I worked for Nigel several times installing card machine equipment in various businesses. After a few weeks he stopped paying me for work I was due (we had an agreement that I would be paid roughly 30 days after each job). He agrees that he owes me 391.50 however for months made excuses on delay of payments. I told him I'm sick of waiting and will make a compalint to the WRC- this was on the 27th of July. Unfortunately I've taken a while getting around to making this complaint as I have had complications in my life lately and not had any spare time.

I can provide messages from Nigel confirming he agrees to the amount of 391.50 although after I told him I'm sick of waiting and will make a complaint, he still has not sent me this amount.

I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case.

The Complainant alleges that his pay was either wrongly withheld or unlawfully deducted and remains due and owing.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 6th of May 2026 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form.

Findings and Conclusions:

It is not clear that the Respondent received notification of the hearing. However, I am advised by the Complainant that the parties had entered into a Mediation process at which time the Respondent agreed that the sum of €391.00 unpaid remuneration was owed to the Complainant.

The Complainant was engaged by the Respondent following an interview process in response to an advertisement placed in INDEED. The Respondent was involved in the outfitting of retail units.

The Complaint was engaged to install cash registers and tills together with debit card tap and go terminals.

The Complainant worked as and when required in the month of May of 2025. However, the Employer was not providing steady work and steady pay. In fact, the Employer still owes money from the last two days of employment – the 28th and 29th of May 2025. The Respondent in the person of Nigel O’Leary seemingly accepted that the money was owing both in WhatsApp which I have seen, and in the course of a mediation proceed the parties engaged in.

I am satisfied that the sum of money in question has therefore been unlawfully deducted.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

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

CA-00077281-001 - The complaint herein is well founded and I direct that the Employer pays the sum of €450.00 to the Complainant.

Dated: 13-08-26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Key Words: