Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Gary  Price

Logos Moving Solutions Ltd (in liquidation)

Representatives

None

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-00072230-001

09/06/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in March 2023.  He outlined that he did not receive his wages for the months of February, March and April 2025.  He was continuously promised payment, but this did not materialise.  He had no reason to doubt the Respondent at the time as he had worked for them for several years.  His net pay was €3,257.09 per month. He is owed a total amount of €10,000.  The Complainant contends he is owed 20 days holiday pay.  The Complainant outlined that he could take as much holidays as he wanted every year.  In 2024, he took 23 days holidays.  He took no holidays in 2025.  He was laid-off from 23 April 2025 until the cessation of his employment due to redundancy on 30 July 2025. 

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing.

Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

Relevant Law

Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (as amended) (“the 1991 Act”)

Section 1(1) of the 1991 Act defines “wages” as:

". . . 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 . . . . ”

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 . . .

(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. 

Findings

The Complainant was on lay-off from 23 April 2025 until the cessation of his employment due to redundancy on 30 July 2025.  He referred his complaint under the 1991 Act to the WRC on 9 June 2025.  He claims he is owed wages for the months of February, March and April 2025, and 20 days holiday pay.  In his complaint form, he stated that he was also owed redundancy pay.  The Complainant confirmed he received redundancy pay in July 2025 but, on the day of the hearing, had still not received wages of a total amount of €10,000, or payment for 20 days annual leave accrued but not taken.

Section 5(6)(b) of the 1991 Act provides that, where none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion 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.  Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I am satisfied that wages were properly payable to the Complainant for the months of February and March and that wages were also properly payable up until 22 April 2025.  I am satisfied that the failure to pay the wages owing 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 wages for the months of February and March and wages owing until 22 April 2025 constitutes unlawful deductions within the meaning of the 1991 Act.  Accordingly, I find the Complainant’s complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant net compensation of €9,119.85.

Having inquired into the matter, I am satisfied the Complainant was entitled to at least 23 days annual leave per annum (the Respondent’s annual leave year being January to December. As this is a complaint under the 1991 Act and not the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, I am not restricted to statutory annual leave or the statutory leave year as defined under the 1997 Act).  The Complainant confirmed he took 23 days annual leave between January 2024 and December 2024.  I am satisfied he accrued 7.5 days holiday between January 2025 and 22 April 2025.  Holiday pay comes within the definition of wages for the purposes of the 1991 Act.  I am satisfied the Complainant had accrued 7.5 days holiday pay at the time of the referral of his complaint to the WRC.  Although this amount was not properly payable until 30 July 2024 (the date his position became redundant), which was after the complaint was referred to the WRC, the Complainant’s sworn evidence was that this amount is still outstanding.  Accordingly, I find the failure to pay 7.5 days holiday pay on the cessation of the Complainant’s employment on 30 July 2025 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 7.5 days holiday pay constitutes an unlawful deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act.  Accordingly, I find the complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €1,127.45 (being 7.5 days net wages).

I decide this complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 is well-founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €10,247.30 (net) in compensation.

Unlawful deduction.  Wages. Holiday Pay.