Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Erkan  Cagin

Boname Fast Food

Representatives

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-00073610-001

20/07/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent, a fast-food restaurant, on 14 April 2025 as a chef. His employment ended on 14 June 2025.

The Complainant’s evidence was that throughout this period he was not paid regularly and instead received sporadic cash payments of €100 or €200. He stated that his agreed rate of pay was €14 per hour and that at the end of his employment he was owed €2,300 in unpaid wages.

The Complainant attended the hearing and gave sworn evidence under affirmation. He stated that he worked for the Respondent for approximately two months and that during this time he was not paid in accordance with his agreed hourly rate.

He outlined that payments were irregular and significantly below what he was owed. He further gave evidence that he was not provided with payslips during his employment despite requesting them.

The Complainant stated that when he sought payment of his outstanding wages upon leaving employment, the Respondent demanded money from him in connection with tax matters, which he refused. He maintains that wages in the sum of €2,300 remain unpaid.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. I note that prior to the hearing the Respondent engaged with a WRC official by telephone in relation to the scheduling of the hearing and confirmed that they would not participate and would not provide an email address for correspondence. The WRC case officer obtained the Respondent’s contact number from CRO records.

Notice of the hearing was issued by post. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the hearing but chose not to attend.

This complaint arises under section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 which provides that an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee unless authorised by statute, contract, or with the prior written consent of the employee.

The initial burden rests on the Complainant to establish that wages properly payable were not paid. Once such a deduction is established, the evidential burden shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that the deduction was lawful.

The Complainant gave clear and credible evidence that he worked for the Respondent at an agreed rate of €14 per hour and that he received only sporadic partial payments during his employment. I accept his evidence that he was not provided with payslips and that, upon leaving employment, he was owed wages in the amount of €2,300.

In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, I am satisfied that the failure to pay the outstanding wages constitutes an unlawful deduction within the meaning of the Act.

I find that the complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €2,300.