Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Noor Moaid  Alsafoore

Vintage Street Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

Non-Attendance

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-00076181-001

09/10/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant gave his evidence under oath.  The respondent did not attend the hearing.  I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the hearing details.  The hearing started by allowing 15 minutes for the respondent to join the hearing.  After that time and in the absence of the respondent the hearing proceeded.

The hearing was facilitated by an interpreter provided by the WRC.

At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”.

The complainant submitted that he was left short €804 that he did not receive from his employer.

In evidence, the complainant stated that he worked a back week for his employer. He confirmed that he received €504.00 per week but that although he worked a back week and therefore did not get paid for the first week in January 2025 when he finished up with the respondent in May he did not receive the back week in the following payroll.

When queried about the additional €300 that he was claiming he noted that this was related to a shortfall from June 2025, after he made his complaint to the WRC.

The respondent did not attend the hearing on this matter.

The complainant submitted pay slips indicating his working relationship with the respondent. He stated that he worked a ‘back-week’ but did not receive that week's payment following the termination of his employment. He stated that this was due to him and amounted to a breach of the legislation.  The complainant outlined that the other €300 that he was claiming related to a shortfall in monies pulled to him when he went back to work with the respondent in June 2025. When it was pointed out to him that this postdated the lodgment of his complaint under the Payment of Wages Act he accepted that it was not covered by the six-month period preceding the lodgment of his complaint.

Although I found the complainant to be somewhat confused as to certain dates, by and large I found him to be a credible witness and therefore I am satisfied that he worked a back week for the respondent and was not paid monies which he was owed.

The Payment of Wages Act defines ‘wages’ as follows:

"wages", 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 of employment 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:

Provided however that the following payments shall not be regarded as wages for the purposes of this definition:

(i) any payment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment,

(ii) any payment by way of a pension, allowance or gratuity in connection with the death, or the retirement or resignation from his employment, of the employee or as compensation for loss of office,

(iii) any payment referable to the employee's redundancy,

(iv) any payment to the employee otherwise than in his capacity as an employee,

(v) any payment in kind or benefit in kind,

(vi) any payment by way of tips or gratuities.

Having regard to the credibility of the complainant and to the facts outlined, I am satisfied that the complainant has established that he was due €504. He provided pay slips to substantiate his claim. Accordingly, I find that the act was breached and that the complainant is entitled to compensation of the amount of the shortfall, i.e. €504.

As regards the additional sum of €300 the complainant confirmed that this relates to a sum of money which he says was due to him after the time period comprehended by the Act.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in respect of this complaint, my decision is that the act was contravened. I award the complainant compensation in the amount of €504 which I consider to be just and equitable, having regard to all the circumstances of this case.

Payment of Wages Act - act contravened - award of compensation