Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Paul  Shiels

Sandyford Inns Limited, t/a Ollies Bar & Lounge

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

  Self

Did not attend

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-00072547-001

12/06/2025

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

CA-00072547-002

12/06/2025

The complainant worked for the respondent as Head Chef from September 2023 until April 2024.  He was requested by the respondent to transfer to another premises and agreed to do so on the same terms and conditions.  This took place in May 2024.  The complainant submits that he is due holiday pay.

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation.  He is a chef and worked for the respondent as a Head Chef in a premises known as the Village Inn and operated by a company called Maykat Limited from September 2023 until April 2024.  He was asked by the owner, Mr Clive Ellis to move to another premises, Ollies Bar & Lounge from mid-May 2024 and he agreed to do so.  This premises is also owned by Mr Ellis but operates under a different company, Sandyford Inns Limited.   The complainant has clarified that his complaints are against this company.

The complainant gave evidence that he received holiday pay in May 2024 for the time he worked in the Village Inn between September 2023 and April 2024.  There was a balance of 8 hours for this time and the complainant was assured by Mr Ellis that this would carry over to his employment with Ollies Bar and Lounge.

The complainant stated that during the time he worked for the respondent he regularly worked without breaks and provided cover when they were short staffed or staff were ill.  He explained that this was his work ethic and he was always flexible.

In early December 2024 the complainant gave three weeks’ notice to the respondent.  He had a meeting with the respondent at the end of December and resolved some issues.  The complainant continued in his role as Head Chef up to mid-April 2025 and then gave one weeks’ notice.  He was informed by Mr Ellis that he would meet with him on his return from holidays but this meeting never took place.  The complainant stated that he always wanted to end his employment in an amicable manner.

The complainant gave evidence that he contacted Mr Ellis seeking payment for the outstanding 8 hours and holiday pay for 32 weeks.  He was told by Mr Ellis that he had no entitlement and directed him to refer to his contract of employment.  The complainant stated that he never received a contract of employment or an employee handbook when he worked for the Village Inn or Ollies Bar and Lounge.

The complainant expressed his disappointment with the manner in which he has been treated by the respondent and his blunt refusal to make the payments which he is due.

The Respondent did not engage with the WRC and did not contact the WRC to advise of their non-attendance. 

I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the date time and details of the hearing.

The status of the company on the Companies Registration Office as of the date of the hearing was listed as “normal”.  I also note that the Annual Return (Form B1C) was submitted by the respondent on 06/01/2026.     

CA-00072547-001:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides as follows:

“(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.

(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.”

In Marek Balans v Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 Finnegan J. considered Section 5 of the Act as follows:

“Section 5 of the Act of 1991 prohibits the making of deductions from wages save in certain circumstances. Section 5(6) provides that where 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, then, except insofar as the deficiency or non – payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non – payment should be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion. Central to the court's analysis must be the concepts of wages properly payable and the circumstances in which, if there is a deficiency in respect of those such payments, it arose as a result of an error of computation”.

What Amount is Properly Payable?

The Act provides that where the total amount of wages properly payable to an employee is not paid, any deficiency is regarded as a deduction. Consequently, to ground a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 an Adjudication Officer needs in the first instance to ascertain what wages are properly payable. The starting point for assessing what is properly payable is the contract of employment. The Complainant gave evidence that he was never provided a copy of his written terms and conditions of employment. However, his pay slips confirm that his gross salary was €865.38 and he worked an average of 40 hours per week.

Was there a shortfall in payment?

Section 5(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from making deductions to an employee's wages except in accordance with the provisions of that section.  The Complainant confirmed that he had no agreement with the respondent to withhold any of his holiday pay.  The respondent did not meet with him prior to his resignation.

At the hearing it was confirmed that the Complainant’s gross pay was €865.38 per week.  The complainant’s evidence was that he is still due the balance of his holiday pay and the respondent refused to pay this.  Based on the uncontested evidence I find that there is a shortfall and  the Complainant is due the sum of €171.20.

CA-00072547-002:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.  It is the complainant’s uncontested evidence that he is due holiday for a period of 32 weeks.

Calculation of pay for holidays:

Section 3 of S.I. No. 475/1997 – Organisation of Working Time (Determination of Pay for Holidays) Regulations 1997 provides:

“3. (1) The normal weekly rate of an employee's pay, for the purposes of sections 20 and 23 of the Act (hereafter in this Regulation referred to as the "relevant sections"), shall be determined in accordance with the following provisions of this Regulation.

(2) If the employee concerned pay is calculated wholly by reference to a time rate or a fixed rate or salary or any other rate that does not vary in relation to the work done by him or her, the normal weekly rate of his or her pay, for the purposes of the relevant sections, shall be the sum (including any regular bonus or allowance the amount of which does not vary in relation to the work done by the employee but excluding any pay for overtime) that is paid in respect of the normal weekly working hours last worked by the employee before the annual leave (or the portion thereof concerned) commences or, as the case may be, the cesser of employment occurs.”

In relation to compensation Section 27 of the OWTA empowers an Adjudication Officer to do one or more of the following:

“(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

 (b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision,

 (c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and

 equitable having regard to all of the circumstances but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment.”

This complaint is well founded, and I note that the Respondent has not made any submission to confirm its compliance with the provisions of the Act and with the provisions outlined in S.I. No. 475/1997.

I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of €2,204.20 which I believe is just and equitable.  I require that this sum is paid to the Complainant within 42 days of the date of this decision.

CA-00072547-001:  I find that this complaint is well-founded and I order the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €171.20.  I also require that this sum is paid to the complainant within 42 days of the date of this decision.

CA-00072547-002:  I have decided that this complaint is well-founded and I order the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €2,204.20.  I also require that this sum is paid to the complainant within 42 days of the date of this decision.

Holiday pay.  Non-payment.