Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Hueian  Hsiao

Rise And Grind Limited T/A Esquires Coffee Limerick

Representatives

Self-represented 

Edward Kelly, Holmes O'Malley Sexton Solicitors LLP

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-00074821-001

26/08/2025

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

CA-00074949-001

WITHDRAWN AT THE HEARING

29/08/2025

The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent on 2 May 2023. Her employment terminated on 20 August 2025.

On 26 August 2025, the Complainant referred to the Director General of the WRC her claim pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

On 29 August 2025, the Complainant referred to the Director General of the WRC her claim pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. This claim was withdrawn at the adjudication hearing.

The Respondent rejects the claims.

In her WRC complaint referral form, the Complainant alleged that on 27 February 2025, the Respondent made an unlawful deduction of €1,000 from her wages and/or tips or gratuities.

The Complainant furnished a written submission on 12 February 2026, in advance of the hearing. At the hearing, the Complainant confirmed that the submission was created with the assistance of AI. The submission is summarised below.

The Complainant submits that she commenced employment with the Respondent on 1 May 2023 as a full-time employee initially as a supervisor. She was later promoted to a manager.  This complaint concerns the failure to distribute electronic tips collected through a card tip machine and the lack of transparency regarding their calculation and distribution, contrary to the Payment of Wages (Amendment) (Tips and Gratuities) Act 2022.

The Complainant submits that during her employment customers regularly used the electronic tip function. She alleges that there was a sign in front of the till stating that tips were “100% shared among employees”. However, she was not provided with any breakdown, calculation method, or records showing how electronic tips were distributed. No detailed breakdown or written calculation of electronic tips was provided to her. To her knowledge, no transparent records were made available to staff regarding total electronic tips collected, distribution method and individual allocation.

The Complainant submits that she raised the matter with the Respondent on 10 August 2025. The Respondent replied in writing as follows:

“Regarding the tips machine: I’m not aware of its operation, I don’t have access on the site, and I’m not responsible for it. This needs urgent review. I have not received any payments and I have not provided any account details. Nothing is connected to the till.”

When the Complainant submitted her resignation letter on 19 August 2025, she specifically asked again about this tip machine. The Respondent still denied the ownership of this tip machine. The response clearly indicates that the Respondent denied responsibility, access and operational control.

The Complainant submits that, as she was employed under a work visa tied to this employer, she was concerned about the potential consequences of raising this issue formally earlier in her employment.

The Complainant submits that, following the referral of her complaint to the WRC, the Respondent later claimed that it was able to access the tip machine data and it calculated that the Complainant was owed €350. The calculation was based on €0.13 per hour worked and included the period from 2024.

This position directly contradicts the earlier written denial of access and responsibility. It is unclear how the Respondent could both deny access and responsibility in August 2025, yet subsequently access the data and calculate an amount owed.

The Complainant submits that no detailed breakdown was provided showing: total electronic tips collected, total hours worked by all staff, method of allocation, transaction data.

The Complainant submits that she had serious concerns regarding the €350 calculation. She commenced employment in May 2023, but the calculation appears to only consider 2024. As a full-time employee, she worked significantly more than 1,623 hours in 2024. The rate of €0.13 per hour appears implausibly low given the volume of customer transactions, the €1–€2 suggested tip amount, and the nature of the business.

No transparent supporting documentation was provided to justify this figure.

The Complainant submits that under the Payment of Wages (Amendment) (Tips and Gratuities) Act 2022, employers are required to:

·         Distribute electronic tips in a fair and transparent manner

·         Maintain appropriate records

·         Clearly inform employees of the distribution method

It is the Complainant’s position that:

·         Electronic tips were collected

·         Transparent records were not provided

·         The Respondent’s position regarding responsibility was inconsistent

·         The calculation offered lacks transparency and justification.

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant submitted a further written submission which largely repeated the contents of the submission previously received.

The Complainant exhibited copies of three photos allegedly taken in November 2023 and at some stage in 2024. She alleged that this photographic evidence proves that the tip machine was powered on and operational at that stage.

The Complainant alleged that the Respondent attempted to deduct a €1,268.57 fee from the collected tips to “release” funds which she contested was unreasonable under the Act.

The Complainant further alleged that the Respondent initially calculated her hours as 2,696 and subsequently as 3,022.80, which in her view confirmed that the internal payroll records are unreliable.

The Complainant presented what purported to be written statements by three named persons outlining their own “experience and observations” regarding the electronic tips. The documents were typed up and contained exactly the same wording for all three individuals. They purported to be signed by the three individuals. I explained to the parties that that they had limited evidential value given that the representatives for each side could not examine them under oath/affirmation.

Summary of direct evidence and cross-examination of the Complainant

At the hearing, the Complainant agreed that she was the manager running the Limerick shop and she was responsible for the calculations and management of cash tips. The Complainant said that she did not know who dealt with the company who provided the tips machine. The Complainant said that at some stage in 2024/2025 she asked another employee about the machine, but he knew nothing about it.

The Complainant denied seeing the tips policy, getting a managerial contract and/or seeing a frame with the statement regarding tips.

Post hearing submission of 13 March 2026

On 13 March 2026, the Complainant confirmed by email that she received the payment of €392.96 in respect of the outstanding electronic tips. She noted that she remained concerned about the level of fees deducted from the total tips.

The Respondent submits as follows.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent café from 2 May 2023 to 20 August 2025. In the week following the Complainant resigning from her position she queried with the Respondent about payment from an electronic tip machine placed at the till of the café in Limerick. The operator of the café, Agata Danielkiewicz, was not aware this electronic tip machine had been installed there. She committed to reviewing the matter and responding to the Complainant.

The café has a physical tip jar in the café as well as accepting tips from customers when paying for their bills.

The café has a policy for Tips and Gratuities which forms part of the Company Handbook (exhibited). As per that policy tips are distributed to employees strictly based on total hours worked and the tips are paid through payroll.

In response to the query from the Complainant, Ms Danielkiewicz contacted the operator of the electronic tip machine (JustTip), who confirmed by email dated 17 November 2025 that electronic tips had been collected via the machine from May 2024 onwards and that based on their records the total figure of tips available to be paid to the café, once JustTip had deducted their fees, was €3,731.44.

The Complainant alleges the electronic tip machine was installed since 2023 but appears to put forward no basis for this allegation. The Respondent denies this claim.

The Respondent has now calculated the tips owing to all employees for the period from 2024 and 2025. This was done by working out the total of hours worked by each employee for the said time period and dividing it by the total amount of electronic tips collected (i.e. €3,731.44) which works out at a payment rate of €0.13c per hour. The said calculation is more particularly detailed as follows:

Grand total of hours worked (for period 2024 + 2025) = 28,773 hours

Total of electronic tips as per JustTip: €3,731.44

Total rate per hour for each employee = 0.12968 (rounded up to €0.13)

In the interest of being fair to all employees the Respondent has now calculated the amount of electronic tips owing to each employee who worked the 2024/2025 time period with the café, including the Complainant, and has emailed them with confirmation of the amount of tips they are to be paid and with confirmation that the tip payment will form part of the payroll on 12 March 2026. A copy of an email sent to the Complainant confirming that she would be paid €392.96 in electronic tips by the Respondent was exhibited.

In circumstances where the Complainant is due to be paid the electronic payment owing to her on the 12 March next accordance with the Respondent's policy on Tips and Gratuities, and where the basis for the calculation has been set out to the Complainant, the Respondent's position is that once that payment which the Respondent has committed to make is made there are no monies "properly payable" to the Complainant, within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act, and as such the complaint is not well founded.

In so far as the Complainant alleges there is more money owing from prior to May 2024, it is evident from the records of JustTip that this is not the case. Notwithstanding that, any claim for tips allegedly owed from 2023 - April 2024 would be out of time and the Adjudication Officer would not have jurisdiction to award for money claimed to be owed from that time period, albeit it is denied any such monies are owed to the Complainant from that time.

Conclusion

The Respondent had made a clear commitment to pay the Complainant on 12 March 2026 for the electronic tips owing to her in accordance with the Respondent's policy on the payment of Tips and Gratuities. As such the Respondent's position is that no monies are due and owing to the Complainant and the complaint should not be well founded.

The Respondent maintains that it has distributed the electronic tips to the employees, including the Complainant, in a manner is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Summary of direct evidence and cross-examination of Ms Danielkiewicz

Ms Danielkiewicz gave evidence that, following her resignation, the Complainant raised a query regarding electronic tips. Ms Danielkiewicz said that she divides her time between the Limerick and Galway locations but is mainly based in Galway and was not aware of the machine in Limerick.

Ms Danielkiewicz said that once she was informed of the machine, she contacted its provider. It appeared that there was no requirement to sign a contract with the company and their records show that the machine was activated in late 2024. The provider furnished the Respondent with the record of sums collected each week. Ms Danielkiewicz said that the operation of the machine was discontinued.

Ms Danielkiewicz said that the Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent in May 2023 as a supervisor. She then left for 4-5 weeks. The Complainant then inquired about a job for visa purposes. The Respondent applied for her work permit, and she was re-employed as a manager from November 2023.

The Complainant has never raised the issue of tips before her resignations. Ms Danielkiewicz disputed that the Complainant would be afraid to raise any issue with her. The Complainant, as a manager, was responsible for cash tips. Ms Danielkiewicz said that cash tips were distributed through the payroll and were calculated on the basis of hours worked.

Ms Danielkiewicz said that, while she works in the café, she does not get tips. All tips are divided amongst all staff, including kitchen staff.

Ms Danielkiewicz said that all staff received the Tips & Gratuities Policy.  She said that from 2022 there was framed text displayed at the till stating that all tips go to the staff. In 2024 Esquire provided a standard notice for all its locations.

Ms Danielkiewicz said that it was the Respondent’s accountant who calculated all the hours of work for each staff member. She said that initial figures did not include public holidays and overtime. The figures were reviewed and changed when public holidays and overtime hours were added.

Ms Danielkiewicz said that contact was made with all staff, current and former regarding the payment.

Ms Danielkiewicz noted that the Complainant was the manager, she should have known about the machine and removed it.

Post hearing documents

On the request of the Adjudication Officer, the Respondent furnished post-hearing a copy of the Complainant’s Restaurant Manager contract with DocuSign confirmation of her signing and dating the document on 20 December 2023; a copy of the payslip showing the payment made to the Complainant; and a record of hours worked by the Complainant in the cognisable period.

The Law

The Payment of Wages Act, 1991 as amended provides as follows.

4B. Treatment of certain tips and gratuities

(1) An employer to which this section applies shall, in a manner that is fair in the circumstances and in accordance with this Act, distribute to his or her employees any tips or gratuities received by the employer by an electronic mode of payment.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), an employer shall not retain any share of tips or gratuities received by the employer by an electronic mode of payment.

(3) An employer may only retain a share of tips or gratuities received by the employer by an electronic mode of payment-

(a)    in so far as such retention is required or permitted by this Act, or

(b)    where that employer—

(i) regularly performs, to a substantial degree, the same work performed by some or all of the employees, and

(ii) retains a share of tips or gratuities received by an electronic mode of payment that is no more than an amount that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances having regard to the amount of such work so performed by that employer.

(4) In considering a complaint under Part 4 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 regarding whether or not a distribution under subsection (1) of tips or gratuities to an employee is fair, an adjudication officer shall have regard to all of the factors or circumstances that he or she considers relevant, including—

(a)    the seniority or experience of the employee,

(b)    the value of sales, income or revenue generated for the business by the employee,

(c)     the proportion or number of hours worked by the employee during the pay period in which the tip or gratuity was made,

(d)    whether the employee is on a full-time or part-time contract of employment,

(e)    the role and influence of the employee in providing service to customers,

(f)      whether the employee was consulted in relation to the manner of distribution, and

(g)    whether there is an agreement, whether formal or informal, between the employer and the employee providing for the manner in which tips or gratuities are to be distributed.

(5)

(a)    An employer to which this section applies shall, no later than 10 days from the date on which a distribution of tips or gratuities is made, give or cause to be given to an employee a statement in writing specifying clearly-

(i) the total amount of tips or gratuities distributed by the employer for the period to which the statement relates, and

(ii) the amount of tips or gratuities distributed to the employee to whom the statement is provided.

(b)    The employer shall take such reasonable steps as are necessary to ensure that both the matter to which the statement under paragraph (a) relates and the statement are treated confidentially by the employer and his or her agents and by any other employees.

(6) Where a statement under this section contains an error or omission, the statement shall be regarded as complying with the provisions of this section if it is shown that the error or omission was made by way of a clerical mistake or was otherwise made accidentally and in good faith.

(7) An employer to which this section applies shall, before establishing or making a material change to its policy on the manner in which tips or gratuities shall be distributed amongst employees, or on the way in which mandatory charges shall be treated, consult with those employees.

(8) An employer who contravenes subsection (5)(a) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a class C fine.

4C. Prohibition on certain deductions

An employer to which this section applies shall not—

(a)    without prejudice to the generality of section 5(1), make a deduction from an employee's wages in respect of tips or gratuities made to, or left for, an employee, or

(b)    make a deduction from tips or gratuities to be distributed, in accordance with section 4B, to an employee, other than—

(i) as required by or under this Act, by any other statute or by any instrument made under any statute, or

(ii) to the extent as is fair and reasonable in order to meet costs directly arising from paying tips or gratuities by means of electronic modes of payment.

6. Decision of adjudication officer under section 41 of Workplace Relations Act 2015

(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 tips or gratuities as the case may be (after the making of any lawful deductions 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 presented to paragraph (a), twice the former amount.

Time limits

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 (as amended) prescribes the applicable time limits.

Section 41(6) states:

Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that, if a complaint is not submitted within six months of the alleged contravention, an extension may be granted by an Adjudication Officer up to a maximum time limit of 12 months where, in the opinion of the Adjudication Officer, the Complainant has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay in accordance with the provisions:

An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

The implications of the above provisions were understood by the parties. The Complainant did not seek an extension of the time limit.

This complaint was referred to the Director General of the WRC on 26 August 2025 and, consequently, the cognisable period falls from 27 February 2025 to 26 August 2025.

Findings

The Payment of Wages (Amendment) (Tips and Gratuities) Act 2022 took effect from 1st December 2022. It introduced an amendment to the Payment of Wages Act 1991 to place tips and gratuities outside the scope of a person’s contractual wages; obliged employers to display prominently their policy on the distribution of both cash and card tips; and obliged employers to distribute in a manner that is fair in the circumstances tips that are received in electronic form i.e., through cards or smart phones.

Employers cannot retain any share of tips or gratuities and service charges received by the employer electronically, unless such retention is required by law (e.g., deductions for income tax, PRSI, USC etc), or to cover the direct costs of distribution (e.g., bank charges, credit card percentage, etc.) or, where the employer regularly performs the same kind of work as the employees, such an amount that is fair having regard to the amount of work performed by the employer.

The Complainant alleged that the electronic tips were not distributed to staff. She further asserted that, while the Respondent contacted the service provider who, in turn, provided data on tips that were calculated from week starting 6 May 2024, the Complainant believed the machine was operational prior to that date. The Complainant further asserted that the fee charged by the service provider was unreasonable.

There was no dispute that the Complainant, in her capacity of the manager, was responsible for the management of the Limerick coffee shop, including the distribution of cash tips.

I have some reservations about the reliability of the Complainant's evidence. The Complainant could not recall receiving her contract of employment or being made aware of the Policy. The Complainant denied seeing a frame with the statement regarding tips. However, a signed copy of her contract was furnished by the Respondent. The document refers clearly to the Respondent’s policies and procedures. The Tip & Gratuities Policy was very comprehensively explained in the Staff Handbook. An electronic record held by the Respondent shows that the Complainant received a copy of the Staff Handbook.

Moreover, in the Complainant’s own written submission she stated that there was a sign in front of the till stating that tips were “100% shared among employees”, which is in direct contradiction of her oral evidence that she was not aware of the policy and did not recall seeing a frame with the statement regarding tips.

In any event, I find it difficult to accept the Complainant’s assertion that she was unaware of the policy, given her own evidence that she was responsible for managing the coffee shop and for implementing the policy in relation to cash tips.

It appears that at some stage, an electronic tips collecting machine was installed in the Respondent’s shop. The parties described the piece of equipment as a machine that collected tips exclusively. Neither the Respondent nor the Complainant could explain how and when the piece of equipment was installed in the premises.

Ms Danielkiewicz gave evidence that she was not aware that the machine was in the shop and that it was operational. Ms Danielkiewicz highlighted that she was not in the Limerick café on a daily basis and that the Complainant was in charge of the café.  While the Complainant raised questions about the Respondent’s lack of knowledge of the machine, it is surprising that the Complainant would argue that she, in her capacity of the manager, was not aware of same.

It is clear that once the existence and the operation of the machine was brought to the Respondent’s attention, it was addressed. Contact was made with the provider; on 17 November 2025 relevant records were obtained to show the monies collected by the machine. Calculations were subsequently prepared by the Respondent’s accountant, and all employees, former and current were contacted and informed of the outstanding payment. I note that one permitted deduction under the Act is where it is to meet the “fair and reasonable” costs directly arising from paying tips or gratuities by means of electronic modes of payment. In this case, the Respondent deducted from the total amount of tips collected the amount of fees payable to the service provider. No other costs or fees were deducted.

I cannot accept the Complainant’s assertion that she was afraid to raise the issue with the Respondent. The Complainant worked for the Respondent for a short period. She left and then returned into a managerial position with the Respondent securing her work permit. The Complainant was in charge of the coffee shop and there was nothing put before me to show that she could have any concerns regarding her job security.

The Complainant suggested that electronic tips were only calculated from 2024, however she was of the view that they were charged earlier. The records of the service provider suggest otherwise. In any event, as per the time limits provided for in the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 as amended, my investigation is limited to the period from 27 February 2025 to 26 August 2025.

I note that the Respondent emailed the Complainant on the morning of 4 March 2026 (the day before the hearing) clarifying the figures for tips collected and fees; the methodology applied to distribute tips and the amount owed to the Complainant. The Respondent informed the Complainant that the payment would be made to her in the next payroll i.e. 12 March 2026 (post-hearing). The Complainant confirmed by email of 13 March 2026 to the WRC that she received the payment.

It is clear that as of the date of the referral of the claim to the WRC, 26 August 2025, and in fact on the day of the hearing, the Respondent was in breach of the Act as it failed to distribute to its employees any tips or gratuities received by the employer by an electronic mode of payment. Consequently, the complaint is well founded.

Having decided that a complaint is well founded, I must consider what award, if any, is reasonable in the specific circumstances of this case.

Section 6(1) of the 1991 Act obligates an Adjudication Officer to include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount, if any, as they consider reasonable in the circumstances, subject to limits prescribed in the same section.  I note the findings of the Adjudication Officer in Puodziulaityte v Word Perfect Translations Ltd ADJ-00031254, in particular:  

It is significant that the Oireachtas chose ‘compensation’ in section 6 to describe the redress to be awarded under the Payment of Wages Act. The job of the adjudication officer is to give legal effect to the words chosen by the Oireachtas. ‘Compensation’ should therefore be given its ordinary meaning, i.e. redress to include consequential loss. Here, the complainant incurred loss in not being paid and in not being paid on time. As she has since been paid the wages due, redress is to be awarded for the loss incurred in the delay in getting paid.  To approach this question otherwise would significantly undermine the ‘further protection’ offered by the Payment of Wages Act. ‘Further protection’ are the words used in the Long Title of the Act and there would be no further protection if all the employer was required to do was pay what was due anyway. If there is a contravention of the Act, the employee must be able to recover for the consequential loss incurred because of the contravention. Of course, this is purely compensatory and not punitive.”

In Kieron Redmond v Sulzer Pump Solutions Ireland Ltd ADJ-00049570 the Adjudication Officer decided that the complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 was well founded in part. However, no compensation was awarded.  In Darren McNelis v Minister for Defence ADJ-00056110, the Adjudication Officer in reference to Sulzer noted that in Sulzer the complainant was not left without a source of income and the deduction concerned a modest bonus payment.

In this case, there was no dispute that the Complainant was managing the coffee shop. In those circumstances, I find it difficult to accept that a tip machine could have been installed in the shop she was managing without her knowledge or, indeed, approval. The Respondent provided a credible explanation of how tips were allocated, describing a matrix system that distributes tips proportionately based on hours worked. There was a detailed policy in place. No evidence was presented to contradict this.

While the responsibility is with the employer to distribute to his or her employees any tips or gratuities received by the employer by an electronic mode of payment, I find that the Complainant, in her capacity as manager of the coffee shop, contributed to the sequence of events that gave rise to the delay.

I declare this complaint to be well founded.

I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €100 (one hundred euro) compensation which I consider reasonable in circumstances where the Respondent processed payment to the Complainant on 12 March 2025.

Tips – gratuities