Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Anderson Andre  Ludwig

Adrian Searles Painting Limited

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00070666-001

08/04/2025

The Complainant, a painter, attended the hearing. Documentary evidence was presented and relied upon at the hearing.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

The Complainant submitted he regularly received a late payment of these wages ranging from a couple of days to weeks. He earned a gross amount of €663.11 working 39 hours per week.

When he took his annual leave for Christmas 2024, he was owed four weeks wages. He was paid for two of those four wages and advised he would be paid by his employer. However, despite numerous text messages and reminders, the Respondent failed to pay his wages for two weeks and five days annual leave by March 2025. It was his submission that he had no option but to leave his employment in January 2025 as a result of the Respondent’s failure to pay his wages.  

Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the complaint and the hearing date. An unsigned short email was received from the company email address on 18 November 2025. It was responded to refusing his postponement and advising that an application could be made to the Adjudication Officer at the hearing. A further email was received on the evening of 18 November 2025 from the Respondent advising it would not be able to attend the remote hearing.

Having reviewed the case file carefully and in particular the refusal to postpone the hearing which was communicated to the Respondent along with an offer to make a fresh application for an adjournment on the day, which was not availed of, I proceeded with the hearing. This decision was also based on the absence of any reason from the Respondent as to why the postponement was sought.

Consequently, the Complainant’s undisputed evidence is accepted that he was due the sum of €1,326.22 equating to two weeks wages which is broken down into six working days and five annual leave days.

For the reasons set out above, I find the complaint is well founded.

In terms of redress, Section 6 provides:-

6. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4C or 5 as respects a deduction made by an employer from the wages or tips or gratuities of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding—

(a) the net amount of the wages, or tip or gratuity as the case may be] (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that—

(i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or

(ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,

or

(b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.”

Accordingly, I award the Complainant compensation equivalent to twice this weekly amount which is the total amount of non payment of wages in the sum of €1,326.22.

Payment of Wages Act