Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Stephen  Travers

RMA Hire Services ltd N7 Commercial Centers

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00064080-001

13/06/2024

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 26th February 2024. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly payment of €673.08. The Complainant’s employment with the Respondent ended on 11th June 2024.

On 13th June 2024, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that the Respondent failed to pay him the sum of €15,480.84. In this regard, the Complainant stated that he completed work across two companies within the Respondent’s group of companies, and that he should have received salary in respect of both roles for the duration of his employment. In denying this allegation, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant received all wages payable to him, and that the complaint should be deemed to be not well-founded.

At an initial hearing of this matter, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. On enquiry from the Adjudicator, it became apparent that the Respondent had not been properly notified of the complaint, and the matter was adjourned on this basis. Thereafter, the Complainant amened the title of the Respondent to reflect the legal title of his former employer, and that matter was duly relisted for 25th July 2025, and finalised on that date.

This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing. The Complainant gave evidence in support of his complaint. All evidence was given under oath of affirmation and was opened to cross examination by the opposing side.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

In evidence, the Complainant stated that he was engaged as an accounts assistant by the Respondent. Even though the Complainant’s employment was with the Respondent only, he was frequently asked to complete work for a separate legal entity within the Respondent’s group of companies. In the course of the Complainant’s employment, he was asked to review a tranche of aged creditors for this alternative company within the group. This task proved extremely labour intensive. One week after completing this task, the Complainant was dismissed on the grounds of poor performance. In evidence, the Complainant took exception to this outcome, stating that the task in question was difficult and that he encountered numerous difficulties, both with the systems used by the Respondent and with the performance of support staff. He also stated that he was not provided with relevant training in relation to many of the tasks in question.

By submission, the Complainant stated that in the course of his employment he was obliged to work as an accounts assistant for two separate legal entities. In circumstances whereby he was not paid by one of the entities in question, the Complainant submitted that he was owed payment for this work completed, to the value of €15,480.84.

By submission, the Respondent stated that the Complainant was paid all sums due and owing under his contract of employment and that he had not suffered a deduction in wages at any stage of his engagement with the Respondent. In this regard, they accepted that while the Complainant did complete some work for a company within the group, he continued to work his normal hours and received full payment in accordance with the relevant term of his contract.

Regarding the present case, the Complainant has alleged that he is entitled to payment for work completed for a separate company within the Respondent’s group of companies. He submitted that he was essentially working as an unpaid accounts assistant for this organisation and that a failure to discharge his wages constituted an illegal deduction for the purpose of the impleaded Act. By response, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant received all wages due and owning under his contract of employment, and that no deduction of any description occurred.

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, defines “wages” as “any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including…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”

In the matter of Marek Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd [2019 No. 83 MCA], McGrath J stated that when considering complaints under the present Act,

“Central to the Court’s analysis must be the concepts of wages properly payable and the circumstances in which there is a deficiency in respect of those such payments”.

Regarding the Complainant’s contract of employment, it is apparent that he was engaged with the Respondent company only, and received an agreed salary for work competed during normal working hours. In this respect, the Complainant has no contractual relationship with the other company in the group, and subsequently has no basis to claim a deduction in “wages”, as defined by the Act, from this organisation. Even if this was not the case, the present complaint relates to an allegation that the Respondent entity has made an illegal deduction from his wages. In this respect, it is common case that the Complainant received all wages payable from this entity and no allegation of an illegal deduction arises against this particular Respondent.

Having regard to the accumulation of the foregoing points, I find that the complaint is not well-founded. 

I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

Wages, Second Role, Properly Payable.