Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Eduarda  Garrocho

Carasco Limited Clayton Hotel Galway

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

 Ibec

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-00070939-001

18/04/2025

The complainant submits that despite repeatedly advising the respondent they failed to provide her with a statement of her appropriate salary.

The complainant submits that there was a significant error made by the respondent and misrepresentation of her salary.in her written contract of employment. The respondent failed to correct this despite repeated requests to do so.  The complainant was offered a salary of €36,000 plus €100 for each wedding booked by way of commission which she has received however, the written contract sets out that the salary is €360,000.  She raised this with the respondent and various managers including HR on numerous occasions and they failed to correct the error and provide her with a corrected contract.  No action was taken to resolve this.  This had significant impact on her as she was accused of fraud by a bank where there was a mismatch between the contract and her payslips.

The evidence of the complainant was that she was not claiming her salary should have been €360,000 as she knew her salary was €36,000.  Her complaint was the employer failing to correct the error and their failure to provide a statutory correct statement.  She was told she had to sign the contract even when it was incorrect and she had sent it back 3 times to the respondent to correct.  She was told by Mr A to sign it anyway even though the salary was listed as a salary of €360,000.  She was trying to get a mortgage and this was denied and her car loan had to be renewed under her husband’s name as the contract had the wrong salary on it and it caused much concern.  She said the company is so big and it goes to a head office and nobody came and said sorry.  Nobody said they would amend it and she was aware that she was on a salary of €36,000 and was not given the correct contract.  A payment increase was sent to her and nothing was done and HR was not available to her. 

Her employment commenced on 04/06/2024 and received the contract and was required to sign it.  She noticed straight away that the salary was detailed as €360,000 and not €36,000.  All the other terms were correct.  She told Ms B and she was told to call HR and talked to Ms McIntyre who said she would reissue it who did but against left the same error in it.  The complainant phoned Ms McIntyre again who said she would reissue it and instead of withdrawing the incorrect contract Ms McIntyre withdrew the correct contract.  The complainant received a letter in December 2024 advising of a pay increase and referring her to the contract and she again asked her manager for the correct contract.  The bank said it was a serious issue that there was a discrepancy between her pay slip and her contract.  She left the respondent and felt she could not trust HR because of all the mistakes.  At the exit interview she again made them aware of it and she confirmed that she was not looking for €360,000 salary but had been looking for a correct contract to be issued.

Under cross examination the complainant said the salary agreed was €36,000 and understood that it was a manual error that she reported to the respondent multiple times.  She was accused of fraud by a bank when she applied for a loan as they said the contract of employment setting out €360,000 could not be correct and must be fraud.

The Respondent's core position is that this claim is fundamentally misconceived and must fail for lack of jurisdiction. The Complainant confirms in her own submission that she has been paid her full agreed upon salary at all times. As no "deduction" from the "wages properly payable" has occurred, there is no contravention of the Act. The Complainant's complaint relates to a documentary error and the remedies she seeks, an order to amend the contract and compensation for stress are not remedies that the WRC has the jurisdiction to grant.

The Clayton Hotel Galway is a modern, 4-star hotel located on the outskirts of Galway City (approximately 4.5 km from the city centre). The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 4th of June 2024 in the Clayton Hotel Galway. The Complainant was an internal transfer from a sister property. The Complainant resigned verbally on the 22nd of April 2025. The Complainant transferred into her role on an agreed remuneration package of €36,000.00 per annum, plus a commission payment of €100.00 for every confirmed wedding against the deposit ledger. This offer was accepted by the Complainant.  The Complainant duly commenced employment and was, and has been, correctly paid at all times at the agreed annual salary of €36,000.00, processed through the company's payroll. All due commission payments have also been correctly processed.

The Complainant has, in her own submission confirmed the factual basis of her salary, stating she has "consistently received €36,000 per year through her payslips” and confirmed that she verbally agreed to this salary before commencement of the role.  It is acknowledged that the Complainant's written contract of employment, issued on or around the 4 th of June 2024 contained a significant and obvious typographical error, stating the salary as "€360,000 per year."  The Respondent has investigated this matter and identified the source of the error. The contract was generated by the HR software system. When the Complainant's profile was transferred on or around the 3rd of June 2024, a member of the Respondent's administrative team manually inputted the salary and accidentally added an additional zero, resulting in the erroneous "€360,000" figure.

The Respondent asserts that this was a manifest clerical error and at no point did it form the basis of the employment relationship, nor did it represent the "wages properly payable" to the Complainant. The conduct of both parties (i.e., the Respondent paying €36,000 and the Complainant accepting this payment) confirms the true agreed salary.  The Respondent acknowledges that attempts were made to correct this error. Due to a subsequent administrative error in managing the document "packs" within the system (believing an incorrect pack was being deleted), the erroneous contract was unfortunately re-issued or remained in circulation. In December 2024, the Complainant was issued a contract amendment letter which reflected a 2% salary increase on her salary of €36,000.00. There were no issues raised between December 2024 when she was issued the updated contract amendment letter and her resignation in April 2025.  . The administrative error does not change the fundamental nature of the issue. The Complainant's complaint is not that she has been underpaid, her complaint is that the Respondent has failed to amend the erroneous document and that this alleged failure has caused her "severe personal consequences," "undue stress," and "reputational damage." No deduction from the "wages properly payable" has occurred. The Complainant has received 100% of her entitlement.

The Complainant's claim is, therefore, not about a deduction, but about a typographical error in a contract of employment. The Act provides no remedy for such an issue.  The Act does not provide for compensation for stress, reputational damage, or personal consequences. This claim is an attempt to use the machinery of the Payment of Wages Act to litigate a matter that is not related to the payment of wages. Case law cited: MaryMcLoughlin v RTÉ (ADJ-00040718) . 

The remedies sought by the Complainant, an order to amend the contract and compensation for stress, are not available under the Act,. The Respondent respectfully requests the Adjudication Officer to find that the claim is not wellfounded and to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, as the WRC has no jurisdiction under this Act to grant the remedies sought.

Evidence of Ms McIntyre

Her evidence was that she was advised that the complainant was on a salary of €36,000 with €100 commission and this was never disputed.  She manually updated her job spec and salary and it was issued from the system and she did not realise that she had put an extra zero in the salary so that it read a salary of €360,000 and she reissued it again.  The complainant was paid her correct salary of €36,000.  It was confirmed that the complainant had flagged the mistake to her and she amended it and thought she sent the complainant the corrected amended contract but did not.  No grievance was raised by the complainant about this.

Under cross examination she did not know why the complainant did not sign the contract.  It is not unusual for people not to sign their contract.  Nobody came back to Ms McIntyre to say there were further queries on the contract.  She understood that the complainant remained upset about the continuous errors that she had made to the complainant’s contract of employment.

The complainant submits that there was an error in her contract and that instead of detailing in the contract that her salary was €36,000 the respondent sat out that the salary was €360,000 and this error was not corrected despite repeated requests and it caused her difficulties with applying for a loan.  The respondent submitted that the complainant knew her contracted salary was €36,000 and that she had no entitlement to a salary of €360,000.

Statements of wages and deductions from wages.

4.—(1) An employer shall give or cause to be given to an employee a statement in writing specifying clearly the gross amount of the wages payable to the employee and the nature and amount of any deduction therefrom and the employer shall take such reasonable steps as are necessary to ensure that both the matter to which the statement relates and the statement are treated confidentially by the employer and his agents and by any other employees.

(2) A statement under this section shall be given to the employee concerned—

(a) if the relevant payment is made by a mode specified in section 2 (1) (f), as soon as may be thereafter,

(b) if the payment is made by a mode of payment specified in regulations under section 2 (1) (h), at such time as may be specified in the regulations,

(c) if the payment is made by any other mode of payment, at the time of the payment.

(3) Where a statement under this section contains an error or omission, the statement shall be regarded as complying with the provisions of this section if it is shown that the error or omission was made by way of a clerical mistake or was otherwise made accidentally and in good faith.

(4) An employer who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000

Furthermore under Section 5

Regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers.

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.

(2) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of—

(a) any act or omission of the employee, or

(b) any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment,

unless—

(i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee, and

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

(iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with—

(I) in case the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing, a copy thereof,

(II) in any other case, notice in writing of the existence and effect of the term,

and

(iv) in case the deduction is in respect of an act or omission of the employee, the employee has been furnished, at least one week before the making of the deduction, with particulars in writing of the act or omission and the amount of the deduction, and

(v) in case the deduction is in respect of compensation for loss or damage sustained by the employer as a result of an act or omission of the employee, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the amount of the loss or the cost of the damage, and

(vi) in case the deduction is in respect of goods or services supplied or provided as aforesaid, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the cost to the employer of the goods or services, and

(vii) the deduction or, if the total amount payable to the employer by the employee in respect of the act or omission or the goods or services is to be so paid by means of more than one deduction from the wages of the employee, the first such deduction is made not later than 6 months after the act or omission becomes known to the employer or, as the case may be, after the provision of the goods or services.

(3) (a) An employer shall not receive a payment from an employee in respect of a matter referred to in subsection (2) unless, if the payment were a deduction, it would comply with that subsection.

(b) Where an employer receives a payment in accordance with paragraph (a) he shall forthwith give a receipt for the payment to the employee.

(4) A term of a contract of employment or other agreement whereby goods or services are supplied to or provided for an employee by an employer in consideration of the making of a deduction by the employer from the wages of the employee or the making of a payment to the employer by the employee shall not be enforceable by the employer unless the supply or provision and the deduction or payment complies with subsection (2).

(5) Nothing in this section applies to—

(a) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee, or any payment received from an employee by an employer, where—

(i) the purpose of the deduction or payment is the reimbursement of the employer in respect of—

(I) any overpayment of wages, or

(II) any overpayment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment,

made (for any reason) by the employer to the employee, and

(ii) the amount of the deduction or payment does not exceed the amount of the overpayment,

or

(b) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee, or any payment received from an employee by an employer, in consequence of any disciplinary proceedings if those proceedings were held by virtue of a statutory provision, or

(c) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee in pursuance of a requirement imposed on the employer by virtue of any statutory provision to deduct and pay to a public authority, being a Minister of the Government, the Revenue Commissioners or a local authority for the purposes of the [Local Government Act 2001 (as amended by the Local Government Reform Act 2014)], amounts determined by that authority as being due to it from the employee, if the deduction is made in accordance with the relevant determination of that authority, or

(d) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee in pursuance of any arrangements—

(i) which are in accordance with a term of a contract made between the employer and the employee to whose inclusion in the contract the employee has given his prior consent in writing, or

(ii) to which the employee has otherwise given his prior consent in writing,

and under which the employer deducts and pays to a third person amounts, being amounts in relation to which he has received a notice in writing from that person stating that they are amounts due to him from the employee, if the deduction is made in accordance with the notice and the amount thereof is paid to the third person not later than the date on which it is required by the notice to be so paid, or

(e) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee, or any payment received from an employee by his employer, where the employee has taken part in a strike or other industrial action and the deduction is made or the payment has been required by the employer on account of the employee’s having taken part in that strike or other industrial action, or

(f) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee with his prior consent in writing, or any payment received from an employee by an employer, where the purpose of the deduction or payment is the satisfaction (whether wholly or in part) of an order of a court or tribunal requiring the payment of any amount by the employee to the employer, or

(g) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee where the purpose of the deduction is the satisfaction (whether wholly or in part) of an order of a court or tribunal requiring the payment of any amount by the employer to the court or tribunal or a third party out of the wages of the employee.

(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.

The complainant presented as a very credible witness when she outlined the difficulties she encountered when her contract did not reflect what her actual pay slips and true salary was.  She brought this discrepancy to the attention of numerous managers at the Hotel who for reasons unexplained did not attach any sense of urgency to ensuring that the matter was corrected for the complainant.  Even at the hearing, it was not evident that the respondent had a willingness to understand the difficulties that arose for the complainant by the error or why the complainant might feel aggrieved by the respondent’s repeated failures to provide an accurate contract to her.

It was clear that it was a repeated “clerical mistake”  and there are no monies properly owing to the complainant and no deductions made.  An Adjudication Officer does not have jurisdiction for where “An employer who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000” and therefore while I understand the upset caused to the complainant by the manner in which the respondent repeatedly dealt with this matter, I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

Payment of wages, summary conviction, failure to provide statement of wages