ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00057585

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  09/07/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

1.            Procedure:

1.1      In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, this complaint was assigned to me by the Director General.  The hearing opened on March 9th 2026 and the complainant, Mr Ibrahim Ibrahim attended and represented himself.  Mr Ibrahim used an incorrect name and address of the respondent on his complaint form and they were not on notice of the hearing and did not attend.  I adjourned the hearing and, having established the name and address of the respondent, a hearing was re-scheduled for July 9th 2026.

1.2      Mr Ibrahim attended again on July 9th and represented himself.  No one attended to represent WE Element Limited, although, a director arrived shortly after the hearing was over.  After he had left, I wrote to the director and asked him to send a submission in response to Mr Ibrahim’s complaint that he had not been paid wages for one week for which he had been employed by his company.  No submission has been received and I have therefore reached a conclusion on this matter, based solely on the evidence of Mr Ibrahim.

1.3      While the parties are named in this Decision, from here on, I will refer to Mr Ibrahim as “the complainant” and to WE Element Limited to as “the respondent.”

1.4      The complainant is a lay litigant.  His understanding is that he was recruited by an employment agency and hired for one week to a third party.  He received no wages, despite his efforts to contact the person who recruited him.  When he submitted this complaint to the WRC on March 11th 2025, he ticked the box to indicate that he wished to make a complaint under the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2003.  In the narrative of his complaint, he stated,

“The reason for the complaint is that I worked for the aforementioned company through the Jacob agency for one week and was not paid my wages.  When I asked for my benefits, he made excuses that the company did not pay him.  Hence the accountant was sick.  When I asked the company it was confirmed by them that he had been paid.  Then he blocked my number on WhatsApp and I could no longer contact him.”

1.5      It is apparent that the complainant wasn’t paid his wages for one week and his complaint is properly for consideration under s.6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.  A similar problem was addressed by the Labour Court in its decision on Ballarat Clothing Limited and Ann Aziz in 2015[1], although, in that case, on the form she submitted to the former Equality Tribunal, Ms Aziz named two company directors as her employer, rather than the name of the company.  Ms Aziz was not legally represented and, finding that the respondent suffered no prejudice by being incorrectly named, the Labour Court referred to the decision of the High Court in O’Higgins v University College Dublin & Another[2], where Mr Justice Hogan held that,

“Even if the wrong party was, in fact, so named, no prejudice whatever was caused by reason of that error (if indeed, error it be)…In these circumstances, for this Court to hold that the appeal was rendered void by reason of such a technical error would amount to a grossly disproportionate response and deprive the appellant of the substance of her constitutional right of access to the courts.”

1.6      While the complainant’s error is not entirely similar to that of Ms Aziz, he has made a simple mistake on the complaint form.  I am satisfied that the respondent will suffer no prejudice if I amend the form so that this complaint is adjudicated on under s.6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

2.      Summary of the Complainant’s Case:

2.1      The complainant has a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering.  In early 2025, he was applying for jobs and, outside his formal applications for a permanent position, he was contacted on Facebook by a man named Jacob Berro.  At short notice, Mr Berro was looking for workers at a construction site in Dublin where John Sisk & Son was developing a block of apartments.  The complainant was offered a role with a sub-contractor to Sisks, Harte Civil Engineering (“HCE”), who were carrying out the groundworks for the project.  Mr Berro sent the complainant a link to an induction training course for employees of John Sisk & Son.  He completed the induction course and he said that he chatted with Mr Berro on WhatsApp.  He agreed a rate of €945.00 for a 45 hour working week and he started on the site on Monday, February 10th 2025.

2.2      The complainant said that he worked with HCE for one week, but he didn’t get paid.  When he contacted him by telephone, Mr Berro claimed that he wasn’t paid because the accountant was sick.  The complainant contacted a manager in HCE who confirmed that they were invoiced by WE Element Limited for his work for the week of February 10th – 15th 2025 and that the invoice had been paid.  When the complainant persisted in his efforts to get paid, he said that Mr Berro blocked him on his phone.  It was in this circumstance that, on March 11th 2025, he submitted this complaint to the WRC.

3.      Findings and Conclusions:

3.1      The complainant’s evidence is that he worked for HCE for five days from February 10th 2015 and that he wasn’t paid any wages.  He believes that HCE was invoiced by the respondent for his work for the week and that wages amounting to €945.00 have been illegally withheld.

3.2      Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides that, to ground a complaint under the Act, wages must be “properly payable.”  Based on his evidence and on the correspondence submitted by HCE, I am satisfied that wages of €945.00 was properly payable to the complainant shortly after February 15th 2025.  As the wages which were due have not been paid, I must conclude that the failure to pay the complainant one week’s wages €945.00 amounts to an illegal deduction. 

4.      Decision:

4.1      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.

4.2      I decide that this complaint is well founded.  In accordance with the redress provisions at section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €945.00.

Dated:   22nd July 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

Key Words:  Unpaid wages

[1] Ballarat Clothing Limited and Ann Aziz EDA 151

[2] O’Higgins v University College Dublin & Another [2013] 21 MCA