Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Michael  Forde

Panscape Partition Systems Ltd (In Liquidation)

Representatives

JAMES LUCEY & SONS LLP

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-00074545-001

19/08/2025

The Complainant gave evidence on Affirmation. He appeared with his solicitor, Mr. Dan O’Connor of James Lucey and Sons LLP. Submissions were received in advance of the hearing and shared with the Respondent.

Ms. Gina Heffernan of Gerard Murphy & Co, Liquidator, swore an Affirmation. The Respondent entered the liquidation process in May 2026.

It was the Complainant’s complaint that he has an ongoing dispute with the Respondent for payment of travel to and from work which forms part of his contract of employment.

The complaint related to the period from 1 April 2025 up to and including 19 August 2025, the date the Complaint was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent, a construction company, on 7 April 2000. He works on a third-party site in Limerick.

The Complainant’s evidence concerns his employer’s failure to pay travel allowance, which were agreed upon as specific terms in his employment contract. He earned a gross weekly wage of €1,290 at a rate of €20.90 per hour. On 1 August 2025 the SEO for Craftsperson rate increased to €23 per hour.

It was the Complainant’s submission that he was underpaid in the sum of €2,048.20.

The Complainant noted that this was the eighth complaint he was forced to refer to the Workplace Relations Commission of which four were appealed to the Labour Court and a further four attendances before the District Court against the same Respondent on the same issue of underpayment. The Complainant was successful in all complaints before the Workplace Relations Commission and Labour Court.

The Liquidator did not submit any evidence.

There was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent.

The Labour Court has decided in favour of the Complainant in this complaint, as has the Workplace Relations Commission on in PWD236.  Furthermore, the Respondent did not dispute the Complainant’s evidence.

Consequently, I find that the payment is contractual and that the complaint is well-founded.

In terms of redress, Section 6(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 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.”

The Complainant submitted his gross weekly wage is €1,290.00 with a net sum of €1,032.00.

I direct the Respondent to pay the employee compensation of the amount of €2,064.00 which is twice the net sum of the payment that should have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment (Section 6 (1) (a) (ii) and (b)),  which I consider reasonable in the particular circumstances of this facts of this case.

Payment of Wages