Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Krzysztof  Stojek

DHL Supply Chain Ireland Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented but assisted by Ms E Stojek

Sarah Dowling of IBEC

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-00074271-001

11/08/2025

The Complainant, a HGV Driver, alleged that the Respondent Employer, a major Distribution /Logistics Company was in breach of the Payment of Wages Act,1991.

The employment began on the 16th December 2019 and continues.

The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been € 913 for a 48 Hour week.

The Complainant was self-represented but assisted by Ms Stojek. A written submission was submitted, and a detailed Oral testimony was given.

The essence of the Complainants’ case was that he had contracted to do a 48 Hour week spread over 4 days. (4 X 12 hours)

Cause 3.1 of his contract was referenced.

In September 2025 he had advised his Employer that he was unhappy doing in excess of 10 hours per shift (especially at night). He had requested the Respondent to limit his hours to 10 per shift.      (i.e.4 X 10 hours)

The Respondent Manager, Mr D, had replied that “There is no problem with this” but had cautioned that the Wages & Conditions which were based on a 48-hour week would have to be pro rata reduced to a 40-hour week basis.

Mr D indicted that following a written request from the Complainant a new Contract of Employment would issue to reflect this.

None the less, shortly afterwards, the Wages of the Employee reflected his actual hours worked and not a blanket 48 Hours as had been the case since his commencement of work.

This he maintained was a Breach of his Contract of Employment that he had never agreed to. Section 5 of the Act was referred to.

As a Deduction under the Payment of Wages Act,1991 it was outside the law as he had never agreed to it.

The Respondent was represented by Ms Dowling of IBEC. She contended that as the Complainant was an Hourly Paid employee his “Properly Payable” Wages was the Hourly rate applied to the Hours Worked. He had agreed to a 48 Hour week on initial appointment but had voluntarily reduced this to a 40 Hour week.

The correspondence with Mr D, his Manager, of the 5th September 2025 reflected this.

Accordingly, as he was fully paid for all hours actually worked in the 40-hour scenario, there could be no complaint under the Payment of Wages Act.

3:1      Legal Points

There are two issues in this case.

Firstly, the Payment of Wages Act,1991 issue and secondly the issue of the Complaint /Workers status under other Legislation which he had not pleaded.

Regarding the Payment of Wages, the Complainant was an Hourly paid Employee. He requested a reduction from 48 to effectively (4 X10 hours) and was hourly paid on this basis.  The correspondence from Mr D on the 5th September 2025 was clear on this point even if appeared that the Complainant had not fully grasped the implications of his request.

The issue of a formal legal change, requested in writing, in his initial 48-hour contract appears to have been overlooked by the Complainant (despite Mr D’s suggestion). None the less the verbal testimony at the Hearing had confirmed the hours reduction request.

The Complainant based his arguments it appeared on the Night Worker regulations. SI. No 49 of 2015 & SI. No 36 of 2012.

The Complainant did not plead his case under SI. No 49 of 2015 & SI. No 36 of 2012. -EC (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 and as such his arguments in relation to a 10 Hour shift could not be considered. This would appear to be a Collective Bargaining issue at the Workplace.

However, in overall conclusion the Adjudication decision on the Payment of wages Act,1991 complaint has to be that the Complainant was employed on an hourly basis post September the 5th 2025 and was paid accordingly. This had happened at his own request.

His complaint of a shortfall as a Section 5 Deduction under the Payment of Wages Act,1991 with the previous 48 Hour week cannot succeed.