Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sean O’Neill

Mick Flood Electrical

Representatives

N/A

N/A

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-00074355-001

13/08/2025

The complaint form submitted on 13 August 2025 alleged that there had been a breach of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

Both the Complainant and Respondent were in attendance at the hearing and both parties took a religious oath before giving evidence.

The Complainant submits a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 concerning his employment with the Respondent from 20 June 2024 to 26 March 2025. He states that he was employed on the understanding that he was a first-year electrical apprentice and was paid at the first-year apprentice rate throughout his employment.

Following enquiries with SOLAS, the Complainant discovered that he had never been formally registered as an apprentice. As a result, he contends that he was not covered by an apprenticeship contract, did not receive any apprenticeship credit for the period worked, and was paid at a lower rate on the basis that he was an apprentice when, in fact, he was not registered as such.

The Complainant submits that he was misled as to the nature of his employment and may have been underpaid for the work performed. He seeks redress in the form of back pay for the period during which he was paid the first-year apprentice rate and compensation for the time lost and the alleged misrepresentation. He requests that the Workplace Relations Commission determine whether he is entitled to redress under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

The Complainant furnished a written submission dated 22 December 2025 together with supporting documentation. The submission concerns an alleged underpayment of wages during the Complainant’s employment as an apprentice electrician and the financial losses said to have arisen therefrom.

The Complainant submitted a back-pay and loss calculation in which he contended that he was paid at a base hourly rate of €9.16 and an overtime rate of €13.74, whereas the applicable national minimum wage rate was €13.50 per hour with an overtime rate of €20.25 per hour. The calculation covered a period of 38 weeks during which the Complainant alleged he was underpaid.

The Complainant further claimed financial loss arising from a period of unemployment from 7 March 2025 to 23 April 2025. He stated that he received no Jobseeker’s payment or other income during this period. Using what he calculated to be his average weekly earnings at the correct rates, namely €526.50 per week in basic pay together with average weekly overtime earnings of €170.53, giving total average weekly earnings of €697.03, the Complainant calculated his loss for the seven-week period at €4,879.21.

In support of his position regarding his apprenticeship, the Complainant exhibited correspondence from the National Apprenticeship Office dated 12 August 2025. This correspondence confirmed that he had been granted a time exemption of 34 weeks in respect of his apprenticeship and confirmed that his apprenticeship record had been amended accordingly.

The Complainant also submitted correspondence confirming that his application to be registered as an apprentice electrician had been completed with SOLAS. That correspondence recorded an apprentice registration date of 4 March 2025.

In support of his claim, the Complainant exhibited a substantial number of payroll records and payslips from the Respondent covering the period from June 2024 to March 2025. These records detailed hours worked, overtime hours, rates of pay, gross earnings and statutory deductions and were relied upon by the Complainant in support of his contention that he had been paid below the statutory minimum rates applicable during the relevant period.

The Respondent, in a written submission dated 26 January 2026, denied that the complaint was well founded and submitted that the Complainant suffered no financial loss or detriment attributable to any act or omission on the part of the Respondent. The Respondent stated that the Complainant was employed as an electrical apprentice from June 2024 until March 2025 and was paid in accordance with the applicable first-year apprenticeship rate throughout his employment. The Respondent contended that the Complainant resigned voluntarily in March 2025 and was neither dismissed nor subjected to disciplinary action.

The Respondent accepted that there had been a delay in formally registering the Complainant as an apprentice but submitted that the delay arose from unforeseen administrative staffing issues. In particular, the Respondent stated that the administrative employee responsible for such matters commenced maternity leave in October 2024. The Respondent submitted that this resulted in an administrative backlog. It was maintained that the delay was administrative in nature, was not deliberate and was remedied once identified.

The Respondent stated that when the Complainant raised concerns regarding his registration on a Friday, the Respondent advised him that the matter would be investigated over the weekend and that SOLAS would be contacted on the following Monday. The Respondent submitted that, upon becoming aware of the issue, he arranged for the Complainant to be registered and also wrote to SOLAS explaining the Complainant’s start date and the delay in registration in an effort to assist the progression of the apprenticeship with the Complainant’s new employer. The Respondent further submitted that email correspondence from August 2024 demonstrated that registration forms had been sent to the Complainant after he had worked for two months with the business and showed an intention to register him as an apprentice.

In relation to pay, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was paid at the applicable first-year apprenticeship rate throughout his employment. The Respondent stated that, following a review of payroll records at the end of the employment, a discrepancy between the minimum wage and the apprenticeship rate was identified. It was submitted that there was no ongoing underpayment and that any underpayment was corrected promptly. The Respondent further asserted that the Complainant had incorrectly applied a minimum wage rate of €13.50 when calculating his loss and that the applicable minimum wage in 2024 was €12.70 per hour. The Respondent acknowledged that an error had been made in calculating the difference between the apprenticeship rate and the minimum wage and stated that, upon reviewing the matter for the purposes of the WRC proceedings, a discrepancy of €2,753.24 had been identified. The Respondent stated that he was willing to pay this amount to the Complainant if the complaint was determined to be well founded.

The Respondent strongly disputed the Complainant’s claim for compensation in respect of unemployment following the termination of employment. It was submitted that the Complainant resigned voluntarily, that there was no dismissal, constructive dismissal, penalisation, threat or adverse treatment connected to the apprenticeship registration process and that there was no causal link between the administrative delay and the Complainant’s subsequent unemployment. The Respondent contended that he could not be held liable for loss of earnings after a voluntary resignation.

As a matter of law, the Respondent submitted that the delay in apprenticeship registration, while regrettable, was reasonable in the circumstances and had been fully remedied. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant suffered no financial loss arising from the delay, that any underpayment had been corrected and that the claim for unemployment-related compensation was outside the scope of the WRC’s jurisdiction and unsupported in law. Accordingly, the Respondent requested that the complaint be found not well founded and dismissed in its entirety.

The complaint form in this case was submitted on 13 August 2025. That means that the cognisable period is 14 February 2025 to 13 August 2025. This is the 6 month period preceding the lodging of this complaint form and within which an alleged breach of the legislation must be identified.

Under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, an employee can make a complaint if they believe their employer has contravened any of the employment laws listed in Schedule 5 of the Act. These complaints are presented to the Director General of the WRC, usually using the WRC’s complaint form, and the Director General shall then pass the complaint to the WRC’s Adjudication Service. Section 41(1) says:

An employee (in this Act referred to as a “complainant”) or, where the employee so consents, a specified person may present a complaint to the Director General that the employee’s employer has contravened a provision specified in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 5 in relation to the employee and, where a complaint is so presented, the Director General shall, subject to section 39, refer the complaint for adjudication by an adjudication officer.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 is contained in Schedule 5 and so that is how this complaint has come to me, as an Adjudication Officer, to examine and carry out all necessary inquiries.

The Complainant, in his written submissions and oral evidence, stated that he was seeking compensation for the seven weeks that he was unemployed after leaving this employment. This would appear to be a reference to a constructive dismissal complaint, which is usually taken under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. However, at no point did the Complainant identify this legislation or specify that he wished for a second complaint to be referred to an Adjudication Officer. In circumstances where a complaint of this nature was not presented to the Director General, I do not have jurisdiction to enquire into that particular matter.

I should also note that even if the Complainant had specifically identified the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 as a standalone complaint, he does not have the required twelve months service to bring a complaint under that Act.

I will therefore address the complaint that was referred to me, namely a complaint that there has been a breach of section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which provides as follows:

“5. (1) 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.”

And

“5(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any 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.”

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 was considered in Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55. In that case, MacGrath J. re-affirmed the proposition that the first matter to be determined is what wages are properly payable under the contract of employment. If it is established that a deduction within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 has been made from the wages properly payable, it is then necessary to consider whether that deduction was lawful. MacGrath J. stated at paragraphs 34 and 35 of the judgement:

“Section 5 of the Act of 1991 prohibits the making of deductions from wages save in certain circumstances. Section 5(6) provides that where the total amount of any 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, then, except insofar as the deficiency or non – payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non – payment should be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

Central to the court’s analysis must be the concepts of wages properly payable and the circumstances in which, if there is a deficiency in respect of those such payments, it arose as a result of an error of computation.”

The question I must determine in the first instance is what rate of pay was properly payable to the Complainant under the terms of the employment relationship.

Neither party furnished a copy of a contract of employment or an apprenticeship agreement. However, based on the documentary evidence exchanged between the parties and the oral evidence given at the hearing, I am satisfied that both parties understood and intended from the outset that the Complainant was to be employed as an apprentice.

What altered the nature of the relationship, according to the Complainant,  was his discovery that he had not, in fact, been registered with SOLAS as an apprentice during the period of his employment. The Respondent accepts that this omission occurred and acknowledges that the Complainant should have been registered at the appropriate time. I note that the Respondent has since made a payment to the Complainant in response to his complaint, albeit not the full amount sought.

Had the Complainant been registered as he should have been, he would have been paid the applicable apprentice rate of pay. The Complainant contends that, because he was not registered, he was instead entitled to receive the national minimum wage for the period concerned. I note, however, that no complaint has been made under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000.

The evidence provided establishes that the Complainant's apprenticeship registration was subsequently backdated so as to cover the period during which he was employed by the Respondent.

In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the national minimum wage was the rate properly payable during the relevant period. I find that the apprentice rate remained the appropriate rate of pay. In reaching this conclusion, I have regard to the fact that both parties intended to enter into an apprenticeship relationship and that the Complainant ultimately obtained the benefit of having the relevant period recognised and credited towards his apprenticeship through the backdated registration.

I accept that the Respondent's failure to register the Complainant when required to do so was entirely unsatisfactory and should not have occurred. However, the Respondent subsequently remedied that failure and the Complainant received the benefit of the period in question being credited for apprenticeship purposes. I may have taken a different view if the Complainant had not received the credit for this period, but as he did, I find that the apprenticeship rate is what was properly payable to him during his employment.

In those circumstances, I do not find that the national minimum wage rate was properly payable to the Complainant for the period concerned. Consequently, there has been no unlawful deduction and therefore no breach of section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

For the reasons set out above, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

Properly payable