Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Seyedeparisa Hosseiny

Capital Care Moate Limited

Representatives

Represented Herself 

Represented by the Managing Director

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-00070979-001

21/04/2025

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

CA-00070979-002

21/04/2025

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

CA-00070979-003

21/04/2025

On May 4th 2023, the complainant, a British citizen and an Iranian national, commenced working as a dentist in the respondent’s clinic in Moate, County Westmeath.  The contract of employment she submitted at the hearing shows that she was hired “on a one year contract, with potential to extend, should both parties wish to do so.”  Her salary was €66,000, plus 41% commission on dental alignment treatments.  An email submitted by the complainant after the hearing shows that, on February 3rd 2024, in addition to her base salary, the MD agreed to pay her 35% commission on income generated over €20,000 per month. 

A copy of an email from the MD dated August 16th 2024 shows that the complainant and her colleagues were paid fees generated from the treatment of patients under the HSE’s general medical services (GMS) scheme.  The email confirmed that income from the scheme would be paid to the dentists on the 16th of the second month after the treatments were administered.  The email from the MD noted that “private pay will not be affected” and that “PRSI and private income will remain the same.”  The complainant claims that she was due payment for August 2024 GMS patients on October 16th and for September patients on November 16th.

The complainant’s mother had to have surgery at the end of September 2024 and the complainant went to England to help with her care.  She received no wages and no payslip at the end of that month.  She claims that she is owed commission for the alignment treatments she carried out in September and €10,000 in respect of GMS treatments.  In total, she claims that she is owed €17,000 in unpaid wages and commission.  She also said that the deposit on her flat which she paid to the respondent wasn’t returned to her. 

On October 7th, having been informed that the complainant’s mother was ill, the MD sent her an email in which he wrote:

“We are all praying for her speedy recovery and hope it is nothing serious.

Take all the time that you need with your mother. Family comes first always!

We are here to assist you in these difficult times. If you need anything on our end please let us know.”

In his email, the MD went on to say that he thought the best approach to the treatments that the complainant hadn’t completed was to assign them to an alternative clinician.  The complainant replied on October 8th, thanking the MD for his understanding and saying that she fully supported the plan to transfer her patients to another dentist.

On October 17th, the complainant was asked to contact the patients whose alignment treatments she had commenced to ask them for consent to be treated by a different dentist.  The complainant contacted the patients and uploaded their IDs to a portal for recording the treatments.  She wrote to the practice and asked for details of how much she was owed for the alignment work she had done before she went to England.  In her email, she said that she had completed most of the work and that the patients’ treatments were almost finished.   

On October 22nd, the MD wrote to the complainant and referred to the plan to assign another clinician to work on the completion of the alignment treatments.  He said that “fees charged by the specialist orthodontist will be deducted from your outstanding pay with the remaining pay being transferred to you.”  The complainant replied the following day.  She said that she understood that the clinician taking over her patients will quote for the remaining treatment and she asked the MD to let her know once the deductions were made so that the balance could be transferred to her.  Later correspondence submitted to me shows that four patients who were having alignment treatment transferred to an orthodontist to have their treatments completed.

On October 23rd, the complainant wrote to a member of the respondent’s finance team to urgently request details of her pay and a payslip.  She said that she understood that the patients that she had treated for alignments had been transferred to another dentist.  She said that she was due €10,000 for her treatment of GMS patients in August and pay for private patients she had treated in September.  She said that she understood that she would be paid in November for the GMS patients she had treated in September.      

When she got no reply, on October 24th, the complainant wrote again to the MD.  She said that she understood that,

“…sometimes there can be delays, but I am currently in a difficult situation where I need to financially support my mum, who is dealing with a serious health condition.  This makes it critical for me to receive the payment as soon as possible.”

On October 25th, the complainant sent a WhatsApp message to the MD.  She explained that she was “in critical need” of her wages due to her mother’s health situation.  She said that she understood that the MD had instructed a named person in the finance team to “hold the payment until further notice.”  She said,

“Given the urgency of my circumstances, I would deeply appreciate understanding the reason for the delay, and if possible, having the funds released at the earliest opportunity.”

The MD replied the following day and said,

“Send me the invoice for the hospital bill and I will pay for it as charity out of my personal funds.

Regarding your payment:  we have systems and processes.  Your departure was very sudden with minimal communication.  We have to conform to our systems.  There are close to 400 people on the team.  I am stretched very thin with emergencies every day.

You previously told me your mother received heart surgery in Iran.  This was prior to you joining truly.  You have made the decision to relocate her to the UK.  Surgeons in Iran are excellent.

I appreciate it is a difficult time for you.  Supporting as best I can.  Thanks P”

The complainant wrote back the same day.  She said that she wasn’t looking for charity, but for the payment she had earned.  She concluded her email saying,

“If you genuinely wish to support me, I would appreciate it if you could expedite my payment.  Thank you for your understanding and prompt attention to this matter.”

The MD didn’t reply and on October 29th, the complainant wrote to him again.  She said,

“I hope this email finds you well.  I wanted to follow up on my previous message regarding my pending payment.  I appreciate your attention to this matter and kindly ask if it’s possible to expedite the process, as the payment would greatly help during this challenging time for my family and me.”

In this email, the complainant asked the MD to return the deposit on her flat, which, apparently, she had paid to the respondent.

When she got no reply, she wrote again the following day, October 30th, reminding the MD that she was still expecting her wages and the deposit on her flat. 

The complainant decided not to return to her job in Moate and instead, she got a new job in England. 

On November 7th, she wrote again to the MD, returning an invoice for lab work sent to her by the respondent and asking for her August pay to be regularised, because no deductions had been taken for tax, PRSI or USC.  Referring to her unpaid wages, she said,

“This is my final follow-up regarding my unpaid wages for work completed in September and the GMS payment for August, which remain outstanding.”

The MD replied the next day over WhatsApp, telling the complainant that,

“Currently there are at least 3 patients threatening litigation and demanding refunds for work you have completed.

1) a composite bonding case

2) a complete denture which a dentist is making from scratch

3) crown case which a dentist is re-doing

These are very unfortunate and taking a significant amount of time.  We are having to call and email these patients back and forth.

“Once we have line of sight and further information we will revert back to you.”

The MD didn’t revert back and, on April 21st 2025, the complainant submitted these complaints to the WRC.

After the hearing on December 3rd, the MD sent a spreadsheet in which he listed five patients who, he claims, were dissatisfied with the treatment provided to them by the complainant, one of whom is alleged to have sent a solicitor’s letter seeking compensation.  The complainant said that she was never informed about complaints from patients, there is no evidence that complaints were made and no investigation was carried out into the alleged complaints.

The complainant was due to receive her wages and commission payments before the end of September 2024.  She was due to be paid her August GMS payments on October 16th and her September GMS payments on November 16th.  In accordance with s.41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, complaints under the Payment of Wages Act must be submitted within six months of the date of the non-payment of the wages.  The complainant submitted three separate complaints to the WRC:

CA-00070979-001 concerns the non-payment of wages due on September 30th 2024.

CA-00070979-002 is a duplicate of the complaint above.

CA-00070979-003 concerns the non-payment of wages due on October 30th 2024.

It is apparent from the correspondence that the MD sent to the complainant on October 7th 2024, that he approved her leave to take care of her mother.  During the first month of her absence, the complainant made several attempts in correspondence with the MD, to have her wages paid.  I note that, in this correspondence, the MD told her that she would be paid when her alignment patients were transferred to another clinician.  It is apparent that the patients were transferred in late October or early November 2024.  Between October 22nd and November 7th 2024, the complainant sent 10 emails and several WhatsApp messages to the MD in which she very politely asked to be paid.  On November 7th, the MD said that he would “revert back” to her.  The complainant waited for her patients to be transferred and she co-operated fully with this process.  She had a legitimate expectation that she would be paid her outstanding wages at the end of October.  It is my view that the breach of the Payment of Wages Act occurred on October 31st 2024 and, on this basis, the complaint at reference number CA-00070979-003, submitted on April 21st 2025, is within the six-month time limit.

At the hearing, the MD said that the situation was unusual and that he wanted to “meet in the middle.”  He said that the complainant “abandoned patients” and that money had to be refunded and he had to pay new staff.  He said that he has been threatened with litigation due to her unforeseen departure.  As evidence of this contention, he sent a spreadsheet to me after the hearing, which lists nine patients, one of whom is stated to have sent “ongoing solicitors letters looking for compensation.”  Another patient is stated to have been given a refund and two others received follow-up treatment after the complainant left.  Four patients were “being looked after” by another dentist with no issues indicated.

The MD referred to the provision in the complainant’s contract of employment which states that a deduction from her wages may be made in the event of,

“any cost of repairing any damage to or loss of company property, any fines or charges imposed upon or any other loss sustained by the Employer or any third party, caused by the Employee’s breach of contract or breach of the Employer’s rules or as a result of the Employee’s negligence or dishonesty.”

The MD said that the company providing the alignment products is suing him.  He didn’t provide any information about the connection between this and the complainant’s work.  He said that he is at a loss of €21,000 because of the complainant’s departure.  He argued that she could have got flights to and from Ireland while she was taking care of her mother.  He claims that she spent one month looking after her mother and then she found a new job.

The Legal Framework

Under the heading, “Interpretation,” a definition of wages is provided at s.1 of the Act:

“[W]ages 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 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.”

It is apparent from subsection (a) above, that fees and commission are regarded as wages, whether this is set out in a contract of employment, or “otherwise,” which means in some other manner such as written confirmation of an agreement, such as that sent to the complainant by the MD on February 4th, regarding commission of 35% on income over €20,000, and on August 16th 2024 regarding GMS payments.

Wages Properly Payable

Section 5(6) the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”), s.5(6) provides that, to ground a complaint under the Act, wages must be properly payable.  In this regard, I note the decision of the Labour Court in Tesco Ireland Limited and Sharon Brennan[1], where, referring to the decision of the High Court in Marek Balens v Tesco Ireland Limited[2], the Court pointed out that the first thing to consider in Ms Brennan’s case was, were her wages properly payable? 

In the case under consideration here, I am satisfied that, when she went on approved leave at the end of September 2024, the complainant was entitled to wages, fees and commission in respect of the work done before her departure.  The respondent did not dispute the amount of €17,000 which the complainant claims that she was owed.  The MD’s case is that her wages were not paid because of costs he incurred due to her alleged negligence.

Deduction from Wages

As she was not paid the wages she was owned, this complaint is properly for consideration under s.5(2) of the Act:

(2) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of -

(a) any act or omission of the employee, or

(b) any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment,

unless—

(i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee, and

(ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee), and

(iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with -

(I) in case the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing, a copy thereof,

(II) in any other case, notice in writing of the existence and effect of the term,

and

(iv) in case the deduction is in respect of an act or omission of the employee, the employee has been furnished, at least one week before the making of the deduction, with particulars in writing of the act or omission and the amount of the deduction, and

(v) in case the deduction is in respect of compensation for loss or damage sustained by the employer as a result of an act or omission of the employee, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the amount of the loss or the cost of the damage, and

(vi) in case the deduction is in respect of goods or services supplied or provided as aforesaid, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the cost to the employer of the goods or services, and

(vii) the deduction or, if the total amount payable to the employer by the employee in respect of the act or omission or the goods or services is to be so paid by means of more than one deduction from the wages of the employee, the first such deduction is made not later than 6 months after the act or omission becomes known to the employer or, as the case may be, after the provision of the goods or services.

The complainant’s contract of employment provides that a deduction may be made from her wages in the event of negligence or dishonesty.  The respondent’s case is that, due to negligence on her part, he incurred costs of €21,000 and this is the reason she was not paid wages of €17,000.

Findings

Up to the date of her departure on approved leave, the complainant was not provided with any information regarding patients’ complaints and no evidence of the alleged complaints was submitted at or after the hearing.  The complainant left her job with the respondent at the end of September 2024.  She sent 10 emails to the MD in the following month, in which she asked for her wages.  In his reply on October 22nd 2024, the MD made no mention of complaints.  He said that she would be paid as soon as the replacement dentist quoted for the cost of the alignment procedures. 

In response to the document submitted by the MD on November 3rd 2025, the complainant said that one of the nine patients identified did not return to the clinic for his follow-up treatment.  She has no information about a patient sending a solicitor’s letter and all the other patients identified received follow-up treatment from another dentist with no issues arising.

As no documentary evidence has been submitted to support the respondent’s claim about patients’ complaints, I have a serious doubt that any complaints were made.  In the email the MD sent to her on February 4th 2024 in which he agreed to pay her 35% commission on income over €20,000, he said,

“Realistically, you are very talented and I believe you can hit 40k every month.  This would result in an extra 14k in commission payments every month. Over a 5 month period that is significant. 70k.”

He went on to ask the complainant to work more shifts, particularly at weekends.  It seems to me to be highly unlikely that this arrangement would have been entered into by the respondent if the complainant’s clinical work was not entirely satisfactory. 

No evidence has been submitted that shows that the complainant was negligent in her treatment of patients.  The spreadsheet which the MD sent to me on November 3rd 2025 was compiled by him or by someone else in the company and is not evidence of patients’ complaints.  The complainant was never confronted with an allegation of poor treatment at any stage during her employment or afterwards and it is my view that the respondent’s allegation that her work was unsatisfactory work is without merit.

If the complainant was negligent and, if the respondent incurred a loss as a result of her negligence, which, then, s.5(2) of the Act sets out the conditions that apply to a deduction from her wages.  These include a requirement, one week before the deduction is made, to provide her with written particulars of the act or omission necessitating the deduction and the amount to be deducted. 

Conclusion

Based on the evidence submitted by both parties and, in the absence of any dispute about the amount of €17,000 not paid to the complainant in wages, commission and fees on October 30th 2024, I am satisfied that this amount was properly payable.  I find no evidence that the respondent had cause, due to any negligence on the part of the complainant, not to pay her wages.  If the complainant was negligent, and, if her negligence resulted in a loss to the respondent, he was legally required to provide her with particulars of the loss one week in advance of the deduction from her wages.  As he did not provide any such particulars, in breach of s.5(1) of the Act, I am satisfied that this deduction was not authorised and was in fact an illegal deduction.

I decide that complaint reference number CA-00070979-003 is well founded.  In accordance with section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (as amended), I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €17,000, comprising wages, commission and fees not paid up to October 30th 2024.  This award is subject to deductions for tax, PRSI and USC.

I have considered the substance of this complaint under reference number CA-00070979-003 and for completeness, I decide that CA-00070979-001 and CA-00070779-002 are not well founded.

Wages not paid, illegal deduction from wages