Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Izabela  Glogowska

Medpharma Contractors Ltd

Representatives

Karl Gill of  Ferrys 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-00076375-001

14/10/2025

The Complainant is a scientist specialising in bio-chemistry. In 2023 she was retained by the Respondent as a contractor to carry out work for one of their clients, a large company producing baby formula. In this capacity she worked on one of the client’s teams as a validation engineer for a period of nearly two years. In Summer 2025 wider issues arose between the Respondent and their client, entirely unrelated to the Complainant, and the Complainant was not paid by the Respondent for a month’s work. The relationship ended soon afterwards.  

The Complainant then submitted a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act on the basis that she is an employee as defined by that act.

The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under oath. She worked for the Respondent as a contractor and was not paid for the month of May 2025 despite working for that moth.

The Complainant’s solicitor, Mr Karl Gill made written and oral submissions on her behalf. Mr Gill argues that the Complainant comes under the scope of this act due to the definition of “contract of employment” contained in the act. In the alternative Mr Gill submits that the Complainant was working under a de facto contract of service and relies on the 2023 decision of the Supreme Court in The Revenue Commissioners v Karshan Limited.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. On review of the WRC’s file in this matter I am satisfied that the notification of the hearing was sent to their registered address and that they were on notice.

Section 5 of the Act generally prohibits an employer making deductions from the wages of an employee.

Section 2 of the Act defines employee as “a person who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment.”

Section 2 goes on to define contract of employment as to mean:

(a) a contract of service or of apprenticeship, and

(b) any other contract whereby an individual agrees with another person to do or perform personally any work or service for a third person (whether or not the third person is a party to the contract) whose status by virtue of the contract is not that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual, and the person who is liable to pay the wages of the individual in respect of the work or service shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be his employer,

whether the contract is express or implied and if express, whether it is oral or in writing;

Mr Gill submits that the Complainant worked under a contract of employment as defined by point b above and has furnished a copy of the contract issued by the Respondent to the Complainant. The Complainant gave evidence on the contents of this contract and the onboarding process.

The contract is between the Respondent, identified as the “Company”, and the Complainant, identified as the “Contractor,” personally. The contract goes on to state that the Contractor shall provide the services of “Assigned Consultants” to the Respondent and its clients. The Complainant is the only Assigned Consultant identified in the contract which also provides that a rate of €35 per hour will be paid by the Respondent, to the Contractor (i.e. the Complainant) for her services as Assigned Contractor.  

The Complainant’s evidence was that the Respondent also required her to engage the services of a company named Icon Accounting which provides companies for contractors to be paid through. She was ultimately made a proprietary director of a company named Aracari Consulting Ltd and was paid through that entity. However, Aracari Consulting Ltd is not mentioned in the contract at all and it appears to have only functioned as a vehicle to process the Complainant’s pay. The Complainant’s involvement with Aracari ended with her relationship with the Respondent and their client and her evidence was that she had no role in setting it up or arranging its relationship with the Respondent. Company records show Aracari was set up in 2021 and continues to trade.

The Complainant confirmed in evidence that the Respondent’s client had never been a client or customer of hers and indeed that before her relationship with the Respondent had never been a contractor and had previously only worked under contracts of service.

On review of the evidence available to me, I agree with Mr Gill that this contract and the relationship between the parties fits within the scope of subsection b. The Complainant agreed with the Respondent to perform work personally for a third person, their client. The person in the contract who is liable to pay the wages (as defined by the act) is the Respondent and it is therefore Complainant’s employer for the purposes of this act.

The Complainant’s evidence, supported by documentation, is that she worked for the month of May 2025 as normal and was owed wages of €5705 for that period. This was not paid and the Complainant ceased working on the 21st of June 2025. For whatever reason the Complainant was paid for her work carried out in June but remained unpaid for May.

I am satisfied that the sum of €5705 was properly payable to the Complainant but she was not paid it and it is therefore a deduction as defined by Section 5 subsection 6 of the Act. The Respondent has failed to provide any justification for this deduction, and it is therefore in breach of Section 5 of the Act.

I find that the complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of €5705.