Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Augusto Flavio Pastor

Sharp Alarms Ltd t/a Sharp Group Fire and Security Service

Representatives

Migrant Rights Centre Ireland

Payroll & HR Administrator

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

CA-00078962-001

23/12/2025

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

CA-00078962-002

23/12/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act 1946

CA-00078962-003

23/12/2025

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

CA-00078962-004

23/12/2025

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

CA-00078962-005

23/12/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act 1946

CA-00078962-006

23/12/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act 1946

CA-00078962-007

23/12/2025

The complainant was employed as security operative with the respondent from 7 July 2025 until he resigned on 16 November 2025. 

On 23 December 2025, the complainant referred various complaints to the Commission in connection with his employment.

By way of written submissions received shortly before the hearing date, the complainant advised of the withdrawal of five specified complaints and of outstanding complaints under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

It was agreed that SI No 319/2024 and SI 326/2025 applied to the complainant’s employment with the respondent.

The complainant’s weekly working hours were variable; he was generally assigned to work between 36 and 48 hours.  The complainant was paid a basic hourly rate of €15.50 and paid an additional €0.10 per hour for Sunday work. 

On 4 November 2025, the complainant gave the respondent one week’s notice of termination of employment.  At the respondent’s request, the complainant subsequently agreed to an extension of the notice period until 16 November 2025.  On 18 November 2025, the respondent sent the complainant a leaver form for the complainant’s signature which detailed a deduction of 96 hours in respect of training costs.  The complainant received his payslip for the last two weeks of work on 19 November 2025 which showed a deduction of €1,317.50 with a training reference.   In response to the complainant’s objection to the deduction, the respondent cited the ‘Employment Regulation Order’.   On 21 November 2025, the complainant received net wages of €115.85 for a period of two weeks’ work. 

The complainant’s representative queried the deduction with the respondent on 20 November 2025, requesting a comprehensive breakdown of training costs or courses, and was advised that the training provided by the respondent was ‘non-billable’.

CA-00078962-001 (Organisation of Working Time Act 1997)

The complainant was not paid a Sunday premium or paid time off in lieu.    He undertook 12-hour shifts on a total of eleven Sundays during the cognisable period of his employment.  The total amount of €13.20 paid to the complainant for Sunday work was unreasonable.

Referring to Viking Security Ltd v Tomas Valentin (DWT1489) and SI No 500/2006, it was submitted that a Sunday premium of time plus one-third or 33% of the basic hourly rate is reasonable in the circumstances.  

Compensation is sought based on the foregoing and for the breach of the 1997 Act.

CA-00078962-002 (Payment of Wages Act 1991)

In contravention of section 5 of the 1991 Act, the respondent unlawfully deducted €1,317.50 from the complainant’s final pay in employment.

The complainant seeks compensation in accordance with section 6(1)(b) of the 1991 Act.

The respondent denied it acted unlawfully or in breach of any statutory obligation.

The complainant signed a written contract of employment prior to commencing employment with the respondent.  It expressly includes a training repayment clause aligned with the Employment Regulation Order for the Security Industry (the “ERO”) which permits recovery of employer-funded training costs where an employee leaves employment within certain timeframes.  The complainant completed 144 hours of structured and mandatory training, funded by the respondent, on commencement of his employment and prior to full operational deployment.   The complainant resigned from employment in the 3–6-month period following completion of training, permitting recovery of up to 75% of training costs under the ERO, SI No 319/2024.  The respondent recovered 85 hours of training costs by way of a deduction of €1,317.50 from the complainant’s final pay in employment.  The complainant was notified by the leaver form of the number of training hours to be deducted prior to the respondent making the deduction and the payslip also detailed same.  The deduction equated to approximately 59% of the total training hours provided.  The deduction is permitted under section 5 of the 1991 Act where the respondent applied a conservative, proportionate and transparent deduction, of which the complainant was notified in advance, and which was authorised by the complainant’s contract of employment and consistent with the provisions of the ERO.  The respondent did not seek to recover pay for inadequate notice provided by the complainant.  

The Sunday hours worked by the complainant during employment were compensated by an additional premium of €0.10 per hour and reflected in the complainant’s pay and payslips.  The complainant’s basic rate of pay of €15.50 per hour and Sunday work rate of €15.60 per hour exceeded the ERO minimum rate of €15.41.  The 1997 Act does not prescribe a specific amount for Sunday premium, and the complainant received appropriate compensation within the meaning of section 14 of the Act.  Compensation for Sunday working must be assessed having regard to the overall remuneration received by the employee, including both base pay and additional premium.

The complainant worked with the respondent as a data centre security officer from 7 July 2025 until 16 November 2025.  The full period of the complainant’s employment with the respondent falls within the scope of adjudication.   

It was agreed that the complainant’s hourly rate of pay was €15.50, and that the respondent paid the complainant an additional €0.10 per hour for Sunday work.  It was further agreed that the complainant’s employment with the respondent is within the scope of the relevant Employment Regulation Orders for the security industry.

The issues for adjudication are whether the deduction applied by the respondent for training costs is a lawful deduction under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the “1991 Act”), and whether the complainant was compensated for Sunday work in accordance with section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the “1997 Act”). 

CA-00078962-001 (Payment of Wages Act complaint)

The complainant’s final payslip from employment with the respondent is dated 21 November 2025.  It records the complainant’s basic hours and pay in the preceding week in the sum of €558.00, accrued annual leave entitlement hours and pay in the sum of €772.52, Sunday work pay in the sum of €1.20 pay, and a training deduction of €1,317.50.

The respondent relies on the contract of employment and SI 319 of 2024 in making the deduction for training costs.  It submits that the complainant was notified of the deduction in advance and that the deduction was proportionate or conservative. 

Clause 5.4 of the contract of employment between the parties provides:-

“Where training is provided for and paid by the [respondent] for new entrants (and including those with less than 36 months service) and the employee leaves the Company:

ü  within 3 months of the training being completed, the Company can deduct up to 100% of the cost of the training.

ü  after 3 months up to 6 months the Company can deduct up to 75% of the cost of the training.

ü  after 6 months and up to 9 months the Company can deduct up to 50% of the cost of the training.”

SI 319 of 2024, which gives effect to statutory minimum remuneration and conditions of employment, provides at paragraph (1) of section 2 for annual leave entitlement to be in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and addresses training at paragraph (11) as follows:-

“Where training is provided for and paid by the employer and the worker leaves the employer:-

-within 3 months of the training being completed, the employer may deduct 100% of the cost for the training provided within that period.

-after 3 months and up to 6 months of the training being completed, the employer may deduct 75% for the training provided.

-after 6 months and up to 9 months of the training being completed, the employer may deduct 50% for the training provided

-Training cost deductions outlined in this clause does not apply to employee’s with more than 36 months continuous service with the employer.”

I am satisfied that the deduction authorised by the contract and the statutory instrument relates to the cost of the training and the maximum deduction amount varies by reference to the timeframe within which the employee leaves employment following completion of the training.

Section 5 of the 1991 Act prohibits an employer from making deductions unless in accordance with the provisions of that section. 

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides:-

“(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.”

Wages are defined in section 1 of the 1991 Act as:-

“…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…”

The wages payable to the complainant on the termination of his employment with the respondent are the sums detailed in the final payslip dated 21 November 2026 which total €1,331.72 gross.  The respondent deducted €1,317.50 from that gross sum by reference to a training repayment clause.  In assessing wages properly payable to the complainant, I must determine whether the deduction was made in accordance with the 1991 Act.

Section 5(2) of the 1991 Act precludes a deduction from wages in respect of services provided for an employee by an employer, the provision of which is necessary to employment, unless certain criteria are satisfied, namely that:-

§     the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the contract of employment,

§     the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the employee’s wages),

§     before the provision of the services, the employee has been furnished with a copy of the term of the contract authorising the deduction,

§     the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the cost to the employer of the services, and

§     the deduction is made not later than 6 months after the provision of the services.

In the first instance, I am not satisfied the deduction was authorised to be made by a term of the contract of employment. 

The respondent’s deduction was calculated by reference to the wages paid by the respondent to the complainant during a period of induction and training.  The complainant completed 96 hours of a site induction/training programme on eight dates from 7 July 2025 to 17 July 2025 and 48 hours on 4 dates from 22 July 2025 to 26 July 2025. It was not in dispute that this was structured supervised training which the complainant was required to complete before he could be fully deployed by the respondent on the roster at a 3rd party site. 

The relevant clause of the contract refers to training provided and paid for by the respondent, and discretion for the respondent to deduct a percentage of the cost of the training.  This aligns with the corresponding condition in the ERO and section 5(2)(vi) of the 1991 Act which refers to the “cost to the employer of the goods or services”.  There was no information before me as to the cost of the training.  The training was provided by personnel in the respondent organisation, and the deduction applied by the respondent was calculated by reference to the complainant’s hourly pay rate and the number of training hours completed by the complainant during his induction. 

I acknowledge that the site induction/training programme undertaken by the complainant was a non-billable cost for the respondent, in other words the complainant’s wages could not be assigned or billed to a client cost centre.  However, I am satisfied that the cost referred to in the 1991 Act, the ERO and the contract of employment relates to the cost of the services provided or the cost of the training.  The deduction applied by the respondent is based on the cost of the complainant’s wages, not the cost of the services, and has the effect of rendering a period of the complainant’s employment unpaid.

Furthermore, the amount of the deduction is not fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances and specifically where it depleted almost the entirety of the complainant’s final pay from employment and had the effect of removing entirely or almost entirely a payment for accrued annual leave on cessation of employment, a protected fundamental social right under European and domestic law.

Accordingly, I find that the deduction applied of €1,317.50 to the complainant’s final pay in employment with the respondent was not made in accordance with section 5 of the Act.  It follows that the complainant was paid less than the total amount of wages properly payable to him under cover payslip dated 21 November 2025, and that the complaint of a contravention of section 5 of the 1991 Act in respect of the deduction is well founded.  In accordance with section 6 of the 1991 Act, I direct the respondent pay to the complainant compensation of €1,500.00, which does not exceed the maximum amount prescribed by section 6(1)(b), and which amount I consider reasonable in the circumstances, in particular the fact that the complainant was left with nominal pay on cessation of his employment with the respondent.

CA-00078962-002 (Organisation of Working Time Act complaint)

The complainant was contracted to work from Monday to Sunday on variable weekly working hours. The complainant was paid an additional €0.10 per hour for Sunday work. 

The complaint is that the compensation paid for Sunday work was unreasonable.  The complainant relied on Viking Security Limited v Tomas Valentin (DWT1489) and SI 500 of 2006, notwithstanding its revocation, in support of submissions as to an appropriate Sunday premium of time plus one third per hour.

Section 14(1) of the 1997 Act provides as follows:-

“(1) An employee who is required to work on a Sunday (and the fact of his or her having to work on that day has not otherwise been taken account of in the determination of his or her pay) shall be compensated by his or her employer for being required so to work by the following means, namely—

(a) by the payment to the employee of an allowance of such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(b) by otherwise increasing the employee's rate of pay by such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(c) by granting the employee such paid time off from work as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(d) by a combination of two or more of the means referred to in the preceding paragraphs.”

The contract of employment provided for pay of €15.50 per hour, and for rates to be in compliance with any ERO for the security industry.  The contract further provided for payment in relation to any unsocial or Sunday hours premiums “in line with the regulations provided in the Employment Regulation Order (ERO) for the security industry.”  The documentary evidence is therefore unambiguous in establishing payment of an hourly rate of pay and for any Sunday hours premiums to be paid in line with the ERO. 

Neither SI No 319 of 2024 nor SI No 326 of 2025 address Sunday hours premiums or minimum rates for Sunday work.  

I do not accept the respondent’s submission that compensation for Sunday work must be assessed having regard to the overall remuneration received by the complainant because, on the documentary evidence, the hourly rate of pay of €15.50 was not determined to take account of the requirement for the complainant to work on Sundays.  This is also consistent with the respondent’s submissions regarding the hourly rate as ‘base pay’ and the additional €0.10 per hour paid for Sunday work as the ‘premium payment’ for Sunday hours worked.   Paragraph (1) of section 1 of Part II of SI 319 of 2024 is also noteworthy in that it requires a breakdown of pay elements included in any composite rate of pay. 

Section 14 provides that an employee who is required to work on a Sunday is entitled to an additional benefit in respect of that requirement where “the fact of his or her having to work on that day has not otherwise been taken account of in the determination of his or her pay.”  Paragraphs (a)-(d) of section 14(1) come into effect where the requirement for Sunday work has not been taken into account in determining pay.  It was common case that the complainant was paid an additional €0.10 per hour for hours worked on a Sunday during his employment, as per the payslips submitted.  Accordingly, the determination of the complainant’s pay took account of Sunday work.  The within complaint concerns the reasonableness of the rate of pay for Sunday work, however I am not satisfied that section 14 provides for a complaint of this nature. 

In the circumstances, I find that the complaint of a contravention of section 14 of the 1997 Act is not well founded.

CA-00078962-001 (Payment of Wages Act 1991)

For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint of a contravention of section 5 of the 1991 Act is well founded.  In accordance with section 6 of the 1991 Act, I direct the respondent pay to the complainant compensation of €1,500.00, which amount I consider reasonable in the circumstances.

CA-00078962-002 (Organisation of Working Time Act 1997)

For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint of a contravention of section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 is not well founded.

CA-00078962-003:  WITHDRAWN

CA-00078962-004:  WITHDRAWN

CA-00078962-005:  WITHDRAWN

CA-00078962-006:  WITHDRAWN

CA-00078962-007:  WITHDRAWN

Payment of Wages Act – Deduction for training – Organisation of Working Time Act – Sunday work