Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Taina  Quintino Oliveira

Woodfire Cafe Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

No Appearance

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-00073859-001

28/07/2025

The Complainant referred a complaint to the WRC on the 28th July 2025 under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1991 Act”) alleging that wages due and owing to her had not been paid.

The Complainant gave evidence with the assistance of an interpreter. I found her to be a credible and reliable witness who gave clear and consistent evidence.

The Complainant stated that during her employment she did not take annual leave and that, upon the termination of her employment, payment in lieu of accrued annual leave became due.

The Complainant received a payslip for the “Week Ending 30 Mar 2025” which stated that her net wages of €2,568.98 would be paid by credit transfer on 30 March 2025. The Complainant confirmed that the payslip reflected the hours worked by her and the wages owed to her, which comprised pay and holiday pay, but that the total wages were not paid to her. 

She received payment of €568.98 on 16 April 2025, however, no further payments were received. On 10 June 2025, the Complainant contacted one of the Respondent’s co-owners seeking payment of the outstanding balance of €2,000. She was informed that a transfer of €500 would be made. She received payment of €500 on 12 June 2025. No further payment issued and no further communication was received from the Respondent.

The Complainant stated that a balance of €1,500 remains unpaid.

Documentary evidence, including the final payslip and correspondence seeking payment, were submitted in support of her complaint.

The Respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing of this complaint. Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the complaint and the hearing date, time and venue. I waited a reasonable period before proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Respondent.

In reaching my findings, I have considered the documentation submitted to the WRC together with the oral evidence adduced at the hearing.

In considering whether the Complainant’s wages were the subject of an unlawful deduction as alleged, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1991 Act”).

Section 1 of the 1991 Act provides the following definition of wages:

"wages", in relation to an employee, means 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, and

(b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice:

…

The above definition includes pay and holiday pay.  The Complainant claims that she is owed €1,500 of unpaid wages.  

Section 5 of the 1991 Act regulates deductions from wages.  

Section 5(1) of the 1991 Act provides as follows:

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.

Section 5(6) of the 1991 Act addresses the circumstances in which wages which are properly payable are not paid:

5(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 non-payment of wages that are properly payable to an employee is therefore an unlawful deduction by the employer. 

In the case of Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55, the High Court confirmed that the WRC, when considering a complaint under the 1991 Act, must first establish the wages which were properly payable to the employee on the occasion before considering whether a deduction had been made. If it is established that a deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act has occurred, the WRC must then consider whether that deduction was lawful.

The uncontested evidence before me demonstrates that the Respondent issued the Complainant with a payslip for the week ending 30 Mar 2025 confirming that net wages in the amount of €2,568.98 were due to her upon the termination of her employment. I find that these wages represented pay and payment in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave. The Complainant gave clear and unchallenged evidence that she received two payments from the Respondent: €568.98 on 16 April 2025 and €500 on 12 June 2025. Despite repeated requests seeking payment, the outstanding balance remains unpaid. The documentary evidence further confirms that the Respondent acknowledged the existence of the outstanding amount in communications with the Complainant but did not discharge the admitted liability. The Respondent failed to attend the adjudication hearing to dispute the claim or to provide any explanation for the non-payment of wages.

The Complainant was a credible witness, providing additional detail as required by the Adjudication Officer and supporting her contentions with documentation where possible.  I am satisfied that the Complainant was not paid the wages that were properly payable to her. I am satisfied that the Complainant has established her claim to the total net wages of €1,500 under the 1991 Act. I find that the Respondent deducted this amount unlawfully and that the Complainant is entitled to compensation, measured by reference to the amount of wages unlawfully deducted, in the sum of €1,500 net. I consider this to be reasonable in the circumstances.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint is well founded. Pursuant to section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation in the amount of €1,500 net, being compensation measured by reference to the wages unlawfully deducted from the Complainant.