CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION SECTION 39 OF THE ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997
This Order corrects the original Decision ADJ-00058125 issued on 26/06/2026 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058125
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sajedeh Naghavi Senjani | Teckel Limited (In Liquidation) |
Representatives | Self | Did not attend |
Complaint(s):
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-00070692-001 | 02/04/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00070692-002 | 02/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/06/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
The parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.
The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.
The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence on affirmation. The hearing was assisted with the services of a WRC appointed interpreter using the Persian (Farsi) language. There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent. I am satisfied that they were on notice of the date, time and venue of the hearing.
While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Sajedeh Naghavi Senjani as “the Complainant” and to Teckel Limited (in Liquidation) as “the Respondent.”
The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 14/08/2023 as an Architectural Technologist. She was paid €5,000 gross per month. She submitted her complaint of unfair dismissal to the WRC on 02/04/2025 and a complaint under the Payment of Wages on 09/04/2025.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00070692-001: The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation. She is seeking payment for holidays for the years 2023 and 2024. The Complainant gave evidence that she did not keep a formal log of her annual leave as she was not anticipating any dispute. She was entitled to 24 days per year and allowing for 10 days taken she submits that she is due pay for 23 days. The Respondent did not provide the Complainant with any details to assist her. However, she was in touch with Mr B at the end of February 2025 and following his liaison with the Respondent’s accountant, he provided details of what the Complainant was due. This amounted to €5,307.71 gross based on her annual salary of €60,000. The Complainant stated that she accepted this and Mr B undertook to process the payment through payroll. However, he later informed her that Mr A (A company director) blocked this payment. Her efforts to secure this payment were unsuccessful. CA-00070692-002: The Complainant outlined the facts in relation to her case. She was given one month’s notice that her employment would be terminated. She was placed off the site where she was assigned and had to return all her work-related materials. She was paid up to the end of December 2024 but did not receive the holiday pay. The Complainant gave evidence that she never had any difficulties or performance related issues with the Respondent. She completed all tasks including many which were outside her physical ability. The Complainant also gave evidence that her contract of employment specifically stated that “The contract is for a two-year fixed term period with the final day of this agreement being the 14th day of August 2025 (the” Termination Date”). The only reason she was given for the ending of her employment was that her speciality was not required anymore. There were no discussions with the Complainant in relation to this. She was not advised that her role was at risk and no alternatives were considered. She is at a loss as to why this happened and the Respondent has not provided any explanation or engaged with the Complainant in this regard. The Complainant outlined the efforts she is making to find alternative employment. This has become difficult when she is asked why her previous role ended and she has no explanation to offer. In an effort to mitigate her loss the Complainant took on a role giving swimming lessons. She is paid €14.60 gross per hour and the hours can vary. The Complainant was in receipt of Jobseeker’s benefit for a short period in 2025. The Complainant provided significant details of the job applications she has made for similar roles but without success to date. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent or a representative on it behalf did not attend the hearing. I note that there was a Court order to wind up and appoint a Liquidator with effect from 04/09/2025. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00070692-001: This is a Complainant seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The Complainant is seeking payment for holidays for the years 2023, 2024 and 2025. The Complainant gave evidence that she did not keep a formal log of her annual leave as she was not anticipating any dispute. She was entitled to 24 days per year and allowing for 10 days taken she submits that she is due pay for 23 days. Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides as follows: “(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.
(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 Finnegan J. considered Section 5 of the Act as follows: “Section 5 of the Act of 1991 prohibits the making of deductions from wages save in certain circumstances. Section 5(6) provides that where 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, then, except insofar as the deficiency or non – payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non – payment should be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion. Central to the court's analysis must be the concepts of wages properly payable and the circumstances in which, if there is a deficiency in respect of those such payments, it arose as a result of an error of computation”.
What Amount is Properly Payable? The Act provides that where the total amount of wages properly payable to an employee is not paid, any deficiency is regarded as a deduction. Consequently, to ground a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 an Adjudication Officer needs in the first instance to ascertain what wages are properly payable. The starting point for assessing what is properly payable is the contract of employment. The Complainant provided a copy of her contract of employment which was signed and dated 10/08/2023. The Complainant’s annual leave is noted as “24 days of paid annual leave each year during the term of this Agreement, or as entitled by law, whichever is the greater”. Was there a shortfall in payment? Section 5(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from making deductions to an employee's wages except in accordance with the provisions of that section. At the hearing it was confirmed that the Complainant’s gross salary was €60,000. The Complainant has relied on her own records and she is confident that these do not reflect all of the annual leave hours that she is due. The Respondent did not provide the Complainant with any details to assist her. However, she was in touch with Mr B at the end of February 2025 and following his liaison with the Respondent’s accountant he provided details of what the Complainant was due. This amounted to €5,307.71 gross based on her annual salary of €60,000. The Complainant confirmed that she would agree to accept this payment in order to finalise matters. The Complainant was told by Mr B that he would instruct the Respondent’s payroll to process this payment. About a month later the Complainant was told by Mr B that Mr A (a Director) had blocked the payment. The Complainant made various efforts to get this payment but without success. Mr B is no longer working for the Respondent I conclude that the Complainant is entitled to payment for untaken annual leave of €5,307.71 gross. Having regard to all the relevant considerations, and based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I award the Complainant the sum of €5,307.71 gross for the outstanding holiday pay. CA-00070692-002: This is a complaint of unfair dismissal referred to the WRC seeking adjudication under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. The facts of this case are that the Complainant was given one month’s notice that her employment would be terminated. She was placed off the site where she was assigned and had to return all her work-related materials. She was paid up to the end of December 2024 but did not receive the holiday pay. The Complainant gave evidence that she never had any difficulties or performance-related issues with the Respondent. She completed all tasks, including many which were outside her physical ability. The Complainant also gave evidence that her contract of employment specifically stated that “The contract is for a two-year fixed term period with the final day of this agreement being the 14th day of August 2025 (the ‘Termination Date’)”. The only reason she was given for the ending of her employment was that her speciality was no longer required. There were no discussions with the Complainant in relation to this. She was not advised that her role was at risk and no alternatives were considered. She remains at a loss as to understand why this happened and the Respondent has not provided any explanation or engaged with the Complainant in this regard. The applicable law, Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended (the Act) states as follows: Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 provides that “the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.” Section 6(4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 provides as follows: Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following: a) the capability, competence or qualification of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do, b) the conduct of the employee, c) the redundancy of the employee, and d) the employee being unable to work or continue to work in the position he held without contravention (by him or by his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under any statute or instrument made under statute. Section 6(6) of the Act states as follows: “In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more grounds specified in subsection (4) of this section or that there were other substantial grounds for justifying the dismissal”. In this case there was no issue in relation to the Complainant’s performance or behaviour. I have carefully considered the submissions received and evidence presented at the hearing. There were no allegations against the Complainant. She was informed outside of work hours that she was to be dismissed and was given one month’s notice. The Complainant’s contract of employment, dated 10/08/2023, contained the following paragraph under the heading “Termination of Employment”: “The Employee and the Employer agree that reasonable and sufficient notice of termination of employment by the Employer is the greater of 4 weeks or any minimum notice required by law”. However, the Respondent has acted in accordance with the termination provision outlined in the contract of employment. I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00070692-001: I have decided that this complaint is well-founded and I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €5,307.71 within 42 days of the date of this decision. CA-00070692-002: I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. |
Dated: 26/06/26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Holiday pay. Payment of wages. Unfair dismissal. |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058125
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sajedeh Naghavi Senjani | Teckel Limited (In Liquidation) |
Representatives | Self | Did not attend |
Complaint(s):
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-00070692-001 | 02/04/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00070692-002 | 02/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/06/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
The parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.
The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.
The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence on affirmation. The hearing was assisted with the services of a WRC appointed interpreter using the Persian (Farsi) language. There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent. I am satisfied that they were on notice of the date, time and venue of the hearing.
While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Sajedeh Naghavi Senjani as “the Complainant” and to Teckel Limited (in Liquidation) as “the Respondent.”
The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 14/08/2023 as an Architectural Technologist. She was paid €5,000 gross per month. She submitted her complaint of unfair dismissal to the WRC on 02/04/2025 and a complaint under the Payment of Wages on 09/04/2025.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00070692-001: The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation. She is seeking payment for holidays for the years 2023 and 2024. The Complainant gave evidence that she did not keep a formal log of her annual leave as she was not anticipating any dispute. She was entitled to 24 days per year and allowing for 10 days taken she submits that she is due pay for 23 days. The Respondent did not provide the Complainant with any details to assist her. However, she was in touch with Mr B at the end of February 2025 and following his liaison with the Respondent’s accountant, he provided details of what the Complainant was due. This amounted to €5,307.71 gross based on her annual salary of €60,000. The Complainant stated that she accepted this and Mr B undertook to process the payment through payroll. However, he later informed her that Mr A (A company director) blocked this payment. Her efforts to secure this payment were unsuccessful. CA-00079692-002: The Complainant outlined the facts in relation to her case. She was given one month’s notice that her employment would be terminated. She was placed off the site where she was assigned and had to return all her work-related materials. She was paid up to the end of December 2024 but did not receive the holiday pay. The Complainant gave evidence that she never had any difficulties or performance related issues with the Respondent. She completed all tasks including many which were outside her physical ability. The Complainant also gave evidence that her contract of employment specifically stated that “The contract is for a two-year fixed term period with the final day of this agreement being the 14th day of August 2025 (the” Termination Date”). The only reason she was given for the ending of her employment was that her speciality was not required anymore. There were no discussions with the Complainant in relation to this. She was not advised that her role was at risk and no alternatives were considered. She is at a loss as to why this happened and the Respondent has not provided any explanation or engaged with the Complainant in this regard. The Complainant outlined the efforts she is making to find alternative employment. This has become difficult when she is asked why her previous role ended and she has no explanation to offer. In an effort to mitigate her loss the Complainant took on a role giving swimming lessons. She is paid €14.60 gross per hour and the hours can vary. The Complainant was in receipt of Jobseeker’s benefit for a short period in 2025. The Complainant provided significant details of the job applications she has made for similar roles but without success to date. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent or a representative on it behalf did not attend the hearing. I note that there was a Court order to wind up and appoint a Liquidator with effect from 04/09/2025. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00070692-001: This is a Complainant seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The Complainant is seeking payment for holidays for the years 2023, 2024 and 2025. The Complainant gave evidence that she did not keep a formal log of her annual leave as she was not anticipating any dispute. She was entitled to 24 days per year and allowing for 10 days taken she submits that she is due pay for 23 days. Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides as follows: “(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.
(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 Finnegan J. considered Section 5 of the Act as follows: “Section 5 of the Act of 1991 prohibits the making of deductions from wages save in certain circumstances. Section 5(6) provides that where 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, then, except insofar as the deficiency or non – payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non – payment should be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion. Central to the court's analysis must be the concepts of wages properly payable and the circumstances in which, if there is a deficiency in respect of those such payments, it arose as a result of an error of computation”.
What Amount is Properly Payable? The Act provides that where the total amount of wages properly payable to an employee is not paid, any deficiency is regarded as a deduction. Consequently, to ground a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 an Adjudication Officer needs in the first instance to ascertain what wages are properly payable. The starting point for assessing what is properly payable is the contract of employment. The Complainant provided a copy of her contract of employment which was signed and dated 10/08/2023. The Complainant’s annual leave is noted as “24 days of paid annual leave each year during the term of this Agreement, or as entitled by law, whichever is the greater”. Was there a shortfall in payment? Section 5(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from making deductions to an employee's wages except in accordance with the provisions of that section. At the hearing it was confirmed that the Complainant’s gross salary was €60,000. The Complainant has relied on her own records and she is confident that these do not reflect all of the annual leave hours that she is due. The Respondent did not provide the Complainant with any details to assist her. However, she was in touch with Mr B at the end of February 2025 and following his liaison with the Respondent’s accountant he provided details of what the Complainant was due. This amounted to €5,307.71 gross based on her annual salary of €60,000. The Complainant confirmed that she would agree to accept this payment in order to finalise matters. The Complainant was told by Mr B that he would instruct the Respondent’s payroll to process this payment. About a month later the Complainant was told by Mr B that Mr A (a Director) had blocked the payment. The Complainant made various efforts to get this payment but without success. Mr B is no longer working for the Respondent I conclude that the Complainant is entitled to payment for untaken annual leave of €5,307.71 gross. Having regard to all the relevant considerations, and based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I award the Complainant the sum of €5,307.71 gross for the outstanding holiday pay. CA-00079692-002: This is a complaint of unfair dismissal referred to the WRC seeking adjudication under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. The facts of this case are that the Complainant was given one month’s notice that her employment would be terminated. She was placed off the site where she was assigned and had to return all her work-related materials. She was paid up to the end of December 2024 but did not receive the holiday pay. The Complainant gave evidence that she never had any difficulties or performance-related issues with the Respondent. She completed all tasks, including many which were outside her physical ability. The Complainant also gave evidence that her contract of employment specifically stated that “The contract is for a two-year fixed term period with the final day of this agreement being the 14th day of August 2025 (the ‘Termination Date’)”. The only reason she was given for the ending of her employment was that her speciality was no longer required. There were no discussions with the Complainant in relation to this. She was not advised that her role was at risk and no alternatives were considered. She remains at a loss as to understand why this happened and the Respondent has not provided any explanation or engaged with the Complainant in this regard. The applicable law, Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended (the Act) states as follows: Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 provides that “the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.” Section 6(4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 provides as follows: Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following: a) the capability, competence or qualification of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do, b) the conduct of the employee, c) the redundancy of the employee, and d) the employee being unable to work or continue to work in the position he held without contravention (by him or by his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under any statute or instrument made under statute. Section 6(6) of the Act states as follows: “In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more grounds specified in subsection (4) of this section or that there were other substantial grounds for justifying the dismissal”. In this case there was no issue in relation to the Complainant’s performance or behaviour. I have carefully considered the submissions received and evidence presented at the hearing. There were no allegations against the Complainant. She was informed outside of work hours that she was to be dismissed and was given one month’s notice. The Complainant’s contract of employment, dated 10/08/2023, contained the following paragraph under the heading “Termination of Employment”: “The Employee and the Employer agree that reasonable and sufficient notice of termination of employment by the Employer is the greater of 4 weeks or any minimum notice required by law”. However, the Respondent has acted in accordance with the termination provision outlined in the contract of employment. I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00070692-001: I have decided that this complaint is well-founded and I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €1,417 within 42 days of the date of this decision. CA-00070692-002: I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. |
Dated: 26/06/26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Holiday pay. Payment of wages. Unfair dismissal. |