Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Noor Moaid  Alsafoore

Vintage Street Limited 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-00076314-001

10/10/2025

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 when he worked for three days with the respondent.  The complainant did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the proposition that he was employed by the respondent for three further days.

The respondent did not attend the hearing on this matter.

The complainant submitted pay slips indicating his working relationship with the respondent. However, that employment ended in May 2025.   He stated that he worked again with his employer for 3 days and that he was due wages of €300 for those days.  However, he was unable to present any documentary proof of employment post-May 2025.

Although the complainant was broadly credible, the suggestion that he would return to work for someone who already owed him money pushes the bounds of that credibility beyond a balance of probabilities.  I am not satisfied that the complainant returned to work for the respondent.

In the circumstances I find that the complainant has not established that the Act was contravened.

Having regard to the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that complainant has not established that the Act was contravened.

Payment of Wages – no evidence of contravention