ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057109
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ali Valiollahibisheh | The Dental Suite |
Representatives | Self-represented | Ms. Sarah Lee, Group Operations Manager |
Complaint:
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-00070020-001 | 15/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 3/09/2025 & 13/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint. The first hearing was held in the Hearing Rooms of the Workplace Relations Commission and was adjourned as the complainant had not set out the details of the commission payments he was seeking. The parties committed to meeting directly to cross-check on the commission due. The resumed hearing was online. The complainant, Mr. Valiollahibisheh, attended and gave evidence under oath. For the respondent, Ms. Lee, Group Operations Manager attended the hearing.
The parties were advised that in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, the hearing is held in public, and parties are not anonymised unless there are special circumstances. In coming to a decision, I have considered the relevant evidence and documents put into evidence. I have summarised the evidence having regard to the relevance to the complaint. At the end of the hearing, Ms. Lee was requested to submit account information to the WRC which was received.
Background:
The complainant was employed as a Dentist and worked from 13th March 2024 to mid-December 2024. He claims that he was not paid the full commission due to him. The respondent confirmed that commission was outstanding although contests the amount claimed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant gave testimony that his contract of employment included the payment of commission which was paid the following month. He said his commission for September 2024 was €4,175 less lab fees and he was paid €1,316. His commission for November 2024 was €6,179 less lab fees and he was paid €1,585. He outlined the income for each day he worked for the respondent over the relevant period. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Ms. Lee, Group Operations Manager, contests that the accuracy of the complainant’s calculations as these are based on estimated income that may not be received in full. She said that in some cases this does not result in income for the respondent and these figures need to be cross-checked. Ms. Lee submitted account details after the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Law "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 Section 5 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides- An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless- (a) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute, (b) the deduction 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 prior consent in writing to it.
Finding The cognisable period for this complaint is from 16th September 2024 up to date the complaint form was received by the WRC on 15th March 2025. The first issue is to establish if the commission is properly payable to the complainant. I am satisfied that the complainant’s contract contains a provision for the payment of commission based on a formula. This was not contested by the respondent. The first hearing in September 2025 was adjourned on the basis that the complainant had not set out specific details of the commission due. Equally, the respondent needed to cross-check to ensure the proper commission was calculated and overpayments were recouped by the respondent. At the resumed hearing, the parties confirmed that no meeting or discussion had taken place since the adjourned hearing. Therefore, the decision is based on the oral testimony and documents submitted by the respondent after the hearing. The complainant outlined the income over the period and what he understood to be due to him. He accepted that lab fees needed to be deducted. The respondent also made an oral submission and outlined that the figures needed to be cross-checked. As requested, Ms. Lee submitted detailed documents after the hearing. Based on the oral and written submissions made, I calculate that the complainant was due commission of €2,859 for September 2024 and €4,594 for October 2024 which totals €7,453. This amount needs to be off-set by- · An overpayment due to the respondent of €1,866 · 20% GMS Deduction of €2,153.66 · Lab fees of €191 I estimate the total commission due to the complainant is €3,243. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find that the complaint is well founded, and that the respondent should pay the complainant commission of €3,243. |
Dated: 04-06-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Payment of wages |