ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055086

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	James Mc Cann	Palmaris Ltd. T/A Palco

Representatives

Self – represented

Respondent Managing Director

Complaint(s):

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-00067152-001	04/11/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/01/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Máire Mulcahy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021. The parties proceeded in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence may be required.

The complainant represented himself and gave evidence under affirmation.

The respondent Managing Director attended as did the respondent’s Accounts and Payroll Administrator service providers. Both gave evidence under affirmation

Background:

The complainant has presented a complaint that the respondent unlawfully deducted the net sum of €807.80 from his wages on 1/11/2024.

The complainant worked as a plumber with the respondent construction company from 9/9/2024 to 23/10/2024.

The complainant submitted his complaint to the WRC on 4/11/2024.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant contends that the respondent failed to pay him for a week in hand, the week of 9/9/24- 16/9/2024, his first week, and that he is owed a week’s wages as he was paid a week in arrears. The respondent did not pay him an additional week when he ended his employment on 23/10/2024.

He contends that he should have been paid for 40 hours, not 38, in the week ending on 23/10/2024.

The complainant presented an additional complaint at the hearing of a deduction of €375 in respect of non- taxable expenses.

The complainant upon being asked by the Adjudicator clarifies that he worked 6 weeks and 3 days and that he received 6 payslips.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent denies that they made an unlawful deduction from the complainant’ wages.

The Managing Director of the company gave evidence under affirmation.

The respondent submitted pay slips in evidence demonstrating that the complainant worked for 6 .5 weeks and was paid a gross amount of €5771.97 for the period 9/9/2024- 23/10/2024.

The Payroll Administrator gave evidence under affirmation.

She confirmed that the last salary payment was made to the complainant on 1/11/2024.

Findings and Conclusions:

I am obliged to establish if the respondent made an unlawful deduction in contravention of the Act of 1991 when he withheld payment of a week’s wages from the complainant on 1/11/2024, to the amount of €807.

Relevant Law.

Section 5 (1) of the 1991 Act states

“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 Payment of Wages Act, 1991 identifies a deduction as follows:

“Where the total amount of 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 cognisable period is 11/5/2024- 10/12/2024.

As a first step in establishing the existence or not of an unlawful deduction, the complainant must demonstrate that the payment deducted from him was a properly payable sum.

Non- Taxable expenses.

The definition of wages in Section 1 of the Act of 1992 excludes

“i) any payment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment”

wages”

Wages do not encompass non-taxable expenses.

Is the weekly wage to the net sum of €807 a properly payable sum?

The complainant has been deflected by the term a week in arears and failed to note that his gross salary of €5771.97 divided by 6.5 weeks, the agreed number of weeks worked by him, corresponds to an average of €888 per week. His final salary cheque issued to him 1/11/2024.

I can find no evidence to conclude that the respondent only paid him for 5.5 weeks, as alleged, and not 6.5 weeks, depriving him, thus, of a weeks’ salary to the net sum of €807.

I do not find the alleged deduction of €807 to be a properly payable sum.

I do not find this sum of €807 to be an unlawful deduction from the complainant’s wages.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I decide that this complaint is not well founded.

Dated: 15-01-2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Máire Mulcahy

Key Words:

Alleged deduction is not a properly payable sum.