Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Isadora  Borsoi Martelli

Jojo Maman Bebe Ltd

Representatives

None

Mark Curran BL instructed by  Mason Hayes & Curran 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-00078642-001

15/12/2025

The Complainant claims the Respondent failed to pay her correct wages. The Respondent refutes this claim.

The Complainant worked as a Customer Advisor from 3 February 2025 until her resignation on 14 December 2025.  She earned €13.50 per hour. 

The Complainant outlined that she was rostered to work 6 hours on 6 November 2025 but was asked by her manager to work an additional 1.5 hours that day.  The Complainant opened a copy of the roster for this date, which she states was amended by the manager confirming her finish time on that date as 5.45pm.  The Complainant submits that only the manager could make that amendment on the electronic roster system.  She claims she was not paid for the additional 1.5 hours she worked on this date.

The Complainant outlined that on 30 October 2025 she forgot to clock in.  Three hours annual leave was deducted.  Her working hours was later corrected to show she had worked 7.5 hours on that date.  The Complainant asserts that the Respondent should not have used her annual leave in that manner.  She outlined that she is not sure that she was reimbursed for the three hours leave deducted or paid for the 3 hours worked. 

The Complainant outlined that she does not know if she was paid for public holidays.  She sought clarification from the Respondent who advised her that they were included in her “basic hours”.  The Complainant outlined she worked all public holidays since the commencement of her employment and that she was paid as normal for these public holidays.  She also outlined that she is entitled to receive 30 days annual leave per annum.

In cross-examination, it was put to the Complainant that she did not clock out on 6 November 2025.  The Complainant responded that she did not forget to clock out on this date but rather that she was asked to remain on until 5.45pm.  Counsel for the Respondent opened the working time record for this date and drew the Complainant’s attention to “anomalies” and “checked” provisions, and noted that it would be the evidence of Ms Parventeva that this shows the Complainant finished work at her scheduled finish time but omitted to clock out at that time, and the “checked” provision shows that her manager confirmed her working hours to be 9.15am to 3.45pm on this date.   The Complainant responded that her manager was new to the business, and the system had just changed and so he was not familiar with it.  She added that he changed the roster to reflect her revised working hours that day, and that only he could make that amendment.  Counsel asked the Complainant if she accepted that the roster is just that – a roster – and is subject to change.  The Complainant responded: “yes, and that’s exactly why he changed it to reflect my changed finish time”.  The Complainant was asked if she accepted that it was the clocking record that was the ultimate record of working hours and not the roster as a roster can change.  She responded that the manager being new was not familiar with the system for recording final hours worked.  The Complainant was asked why she did not query the alleged under payment sooner especially given she had raised issues in November in relation to her November pay.  The Complainant responded that she did not realise she was not paid for the 1.5 hours until she analysed the documents.  She accepted that was a significant time after her initial complaints were raised.

Counsel for the Respondent opened emails the Complainant sent to the Respondent in November querying the 3 hours leave deducted in relation to her omission to clock out on 30 October 2025.  The Complainant confirmed that the Respondent had replied to the Complainant and in that email the Respondent had correctly identified the hours she worked on 30 October and confirmed that the 3 hours had been restored to her leave balance and that she had been paid for the 3 hours worked.  The Complainant confirmed she received that email but would not confirm she received the 3 hours pay.  Counsel took the Complainant to the incorrect version of the payslip showing a deduction of 7.5 hours.  The Complainant confirmed that this is the payslip she had an issue with.  The Complainant was then directed to the revised payslip for November.  It was put to the Complainant that it would be Ms Parventeva’s evidence that the Complainant was sent this revised payslip contrary to her claim, and that this payslip shows a payment for the amount of €1,879.83.  The Complainant confirmed she received this amount.  The Complainant was asked if she accepted this amount included payment for the 3 hours owing to her.  The Complainant responded “no”. The Complainant was asked if she accepted her normal net monthly pay was €1,759.73.  The Complainant responded “yes”. The Complainant was asked if she accepted that the differential between the two figures was in respect of the 3 hours pay owed to her.  The Complainant responded, “I can’t say yes or no”.

Counsel opened a copy of the Complainant’s contract of employment, and a provision providing for the inclusion of 10 public holidays within the leave allowance of 30 days.  The Complainant responded that this was not explained to her in advance, and further that this copy of her contract was only sent to her electronically on commencement of employment and was not signed by her.  A copy of the Complainant’s final payslip was opened to the hearing.  The Complainant confirmed that this was her final payslip and the reference to “holiday pay” of “€801” reflects payment for holidays and public holidays accrued but not taken on cessation of employment.  The Complainant responded that she had no way of verifying that figure.  Counsel took the Complainant to a record of holidays taken.  The Complainant confirmed that she worked 7 public holidays in 2025.  Counsel took the Complainant through the calculation outlining her total leave entitlement (155.34 hours leave representing a pro-rata amount of 30 days leave for time worked in 2025);  leave taken (96 hours) and leave remaining (59.34 hours).  The Complainant confirmed she had taken 96 hours holidays, and that 59.34 hours of leave accrued but not taken (59.34 x €13.50 = €801.09) was included in her final pay.  The Complainant stated she has no way of knowing if 155.34 hours is the correct figure of total leave accrued for 2025.  It was put to the Complainant that she was in fact given the benefit of a pro-rata of 10 days public holidays even though she had only worked 7 of those 10 days.  It was put to the Complainant that she received all leave accrued but not taken on cessation of employment including the 3 hours annual leave in respect of 30 October 2025.

Ms Parventeva is a senior HR business partner.  A copy of the Complainant’s hours of work on 6 November 2025 was opened to the hearing.  Ms Parventeva explained that this is the official record of hours worked and is a record of hours recorded by the clocking system.  Rosters are not an official record of hours worked as rosters can change.  Wages are determined on the basis of the clocking system.  If an employee omits to clock in or out the Respondent relies on the manager to correct the clocking system if the manager is satisfied the hours were worked.  The “anomalies” section allows the manager to enter data such as a missed clocking in/out.  The “checked” section is confirmation from the manager that he has checked the hours worked for that person.  The manager confirmed the Complainant’s hours for 6 November 2025 as 6 hours worked – not 7.5 hours as claimed by the Complainant.

Ms Parventeva outlined that holidays for full time staff is 30 days per annum comprised of 20 days statutory leave and 10 days in lieu of public holidays.  If a staff member works a public holiday, they are paid as normal for that day and they get to take a day of leave at some point in the future out of the bank of 30 days leave entitlement.  Ms Parventeva outlined the Complainant’s pro-rata leave entitlement on the basis of time worked for 2025.  She checked these figures when same was queried by the Complainant and found the calculations to be accurate.  Ms Parventeva confirmed that the leave calculation which the Complainant had been brought through in cross-examination was prepared by her and was accurate.

In cross-examination, Ms Parventeva was asked why the roster showing the additional 1.5 hours worked by her, as amended by the manager on the roster, was not taken into account.   Ms Parventeva replied that the clocking system is the official record, and that is why there is a requirement for staff to clock in/out whereas rosters are subject to change and therefore are not a reliable record.  Further, the manager had confirmed the hours worked on 6 November 2025.

Findings

The correspondence provided by the Complainant as part of her written submissions indicates that she was confused regarding her entitlements.  I am satisfied the Respondent made considerable efforts to clarify those entitlements, including offering to discuss the matter directly. While the Complainant welcomed the offer of a discussion, she stipulated that any such call be recorded, a condition which appears to me to have been unreasonable in the circumstances.  When the calculations underpinning her entitlements were explained to her, the Complainant repeatedly questioned them.  She sent numerous emails seeking a "detailed, written record of all calculations, adjustments and final confirmations".  The Respondent assured her that this information would be provided and subsequently furnished the requested details, including a revised payslip for November 2025.  Nonetheless, the Complainant continued to question the calculations.  At the hearing into her complaint, during cross-examination, the Complainant was taken through the calculations step by step and accepted each individual figure as it was put to her.  However, having done so, she ultimately remained unwilling to accept that the overall calculations were correct.

The Complainant referred her claims to the WRC under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (“the 1991 Act”). 

“Wages” are defined at s. 1(1) of the 1991 Act as meaning:

“. . . any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—

(a)   . . . any holiday . . . pay . . . . ”

Section 5 of the 1991 Act provides:

“(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it . . .

(5) Nothing in this section applies to—(a) . . .

(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,

then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.”

In Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55, the High Court outlined that when considering a complaint under the 1991 Act, it must first be established the wages which were properly payable before considering whether a deduction had been made. 

Section 5(6)(a) of the 1991 Act provides that, where the total amount of wages paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by it to the employee on that occasion, then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.  Accordingly, and in line with Balans, the first issue to be determined is the wages properly payable to the Complainant for hours worked on 6 November 2025, and cesser holiday pay properly payable on the termination of her employment.  If I find the foregoing payments were properly payable, it must then be established whether there was a shortfall between the amount properly payable on that occasion and the amount actually received and, if so, whether the shortfall arose for one of the reasons set out in s. 5(1) of the 1991 Act.

I find 7.5 hours pay was properly payable to the Complainant on 6 November 2025 for the reasons set out below.

I find cesser holiday pay of an amount not greater than €801.09 was properly payable to the Complainant on the termination of her employment for the reasons set out below.

Claim in respect of 1.5 hours for 6 November 2025

On 6 November 2025 the Complainant was rostered to work 6 hours.  She claims her manager asked her to work an additional 1.5 hours that day.  She submits that her manager noted the revised finish time on the electronic roster system, but that this was not taken into consideration by the Respondent.  It is the Respondent’s position that the clocking in and out system is the official record of hours worked as rosters can change.  Pay is determined on the basis of the clocking system.  A manager has authority to note on the clocking system if an employee omitted to clock in/out and to amend the hours on the clocking system to reflect the hours actually worked.  However, the Complainant’s manager confirmed the rostered 6 hours on 6 November 2025 by ticking the “checked” box on the system to verify same. 

It was common case that it was the Complainant’s responsibility to clock in and out.  This is important to ensure that issues in relation to pay, such as the present issue, do not arise.  I accept that ordinarily the Respondent is entitled to rely on the clocking records, especially when same is marked ‘checked’ by the relevant manager.  However, in this case, the Complainant outlined that only the manager had authority to amend the roster system – which he did to reflect the additional 1.5 hours worked, and further that he was unfamiliar with the new clocking system having been recently appointed.  None of the foregoing was disputed by the Respondent.  I note the manager was not called to give evidence.  On balance, I accept the Complainant’s evidence that she worked an additional 1.5 hours on 6 November 2025.  This finding is supported by the amendment recorded in the roster system by the manager, who was the only individual who could make such a change.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that payment for 7.5 hours was properly payable to the Complainant for hours worked on 6 November 2025.  It is common case the Complainant was paid for 6 hours on this date.  I am satisfied that the failure to pay the differential of 1.5 hours of wages was not due to a computational error and did not arise for one of the reasons set out in s. 5(1) of the 1991 Act.  Therefore, I find the Respondent’s failure to pay 1.5 hours of wages constitutes an unlawful deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act.  Accordingly, I find this element of the Complainant’s complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €20.25 (being an hourly rate of €13.50 x 1.5 hours).

Claim in respect of statutory public holidays & 3 hours of annual leave

The Complainant commenced employment on 3 February 2025 and resigned on 14 December 2025.  She was contracted to work 30 hours per week.  It was common case the Complainant’s contract of employment provided for 30 days annual leave which was comprised of 20 days statutory annual leave and 10 days leave in lieu of public holidays.  I note the Respondent is entitled to elect to give additional days of leave in respect of statutory public holidays in line with s. 21(1)(c) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.  The Complainant sought clarity with respect to the payment of public holidays and queried if she had received her statutory entitlements to 7 public holidays.  She also queried if 3 hours of leave had been restored to her annual leave balance and whether she had been paid in lieu of all leave accrued but not taken on termination of her employment.

Based on the detailed calculations presented to the hearing and worked through in direct evidence and in cross-examination, I accept the Respondent’s submission that the Complainant had accrued 155.34 hours of leave between 3 February 2025 and 14 December 2025 (I note the Complainant was given the benefit of a pro-rata amount of 10 public holidays even though she had only worked 7 public holidays).  It is also clear the 3 hours leave deducted in relation to 30 October 2025 was restored to the Complainant’s leave balance.  The Complainant accepted in cross-examination that she took 96 hours leave.  It is common case the Complainant earned €13.50 per hour.  I am satisfied that the sum of €801.09, which amounts to 59.43 hours of accrued leave (made up of statutory annual leave and leave in lieu of public holidays) not taken, was properly payable to the Complainant on termination of her employment.  The Complainant accepted in cross-examination that she received this amount in her final pay.  No deficiency or non-payment arises on the facts.  Accordingly, I am satisfied this element of the complaint under the 1991 Act is not well founded. 

With respect to 30 October 2025, I am satisfied the Complainant worked 7.5 hours on that date. While an initial discrepancy arose due to the Complainant’s failure to follow the required clocking procedures, I am satisfied that this discrepancy was subsequently resolved once the actual hours worked were verified, and that the Complainant received payment for the 7.5 hours worked on that date.  This is evident from the records opened by counsel at the hearing and put to the Complainant during cross-examination.  I am satisfied that no deficiency or non-payment arises on the facts.  Accordingly, I am satisfied this element of the complaint under the 1991 Act is not well founded. 

I decide this complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 is well founded in part and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €20.25 (twenty euro and 25 cent).

Holiday pay.  Deduction.