Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jamie  O Mahony

Brooks Timber And Building Supplies Ltd

Representatives

Appeared In Person

Hazel Robinson, Human Resource lead.

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-00074619-001

20/08/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00074619-002

20/08/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00074619-003

20/08/2025

On 20 August 2028, the Complainant, a forklift Operator, submitted three complaints to the WRC.

CA-00074619-001   Payment of Wages:

CA-00074619-002     Payment of Wages:

CA-00074619 -003 Statement of Terms of Employment:

On 23 September 2025, the WRC notified the Respondent of the claims made.

Both parties were invited to hearing scheduled for 12 January 2026 in Cork.

On 23 January 2025, in preparation for hearing, I wrote to both parties, seeking a written submission, pay slips to illustrate the deductions of wages and “any correspondence surrounding any efforts made at resolution “

On 5 January 2026, the Respondent forwarded a written submission. Permission was sought and granted to facilitate their representative, Ms. Robinson, online.

On 12 January 2026, the complainant forwarded a copy of his last pay slip and details of the customer account he held at the business.

The Complainant took the oath to accompany his evidence at hearing. Mr. Noonan availed of the affirmation.

The Complainant represented himself at hearing. He outlined that he had worked for the Respondent from 2 October 2017 until his date of resignation of 29 July 2025.

His complaints centered on:

CA-00074619-001   Payment of Wages

That on August 1, 2025, the Company had deducted €650.23 as an unlawful deduction from his wages on leaving the company.

“I had an account with the company for my personal supplies unrelated to my job and as I was leaving it was taken without discussion or consent from my last paycheck.”

CA-00074619-002     Payment of Wages

The Complainant submitted that he had been under paid by €1106.02 on August 1, 2025, by being denied payment for a week in hand worked at the commencement of his employment.

CA-00074619 -003 Statement of Terms of Employment

The Complainant submitted that following his promotion to the role of Yard Supervisor in December 2023,

“I never got the contract and never got the raise I agreed on and stayed for “.

Evidence of the Complainant:

The Complainant outlined the details of his credit account held at the business. He exhibited statements of account dated 31 July and 30 September 2025, both reflecting the sum €650.23, in the “black zone “. He exhibited a final pay slip of €248.05 nett ex the deduction.

His evidence confirmed that he operated a credit account paid monthly. This hosted payments for tools for his personal use.

He outlined that he had worked as a Yard operator until 2023 when he had been offered and had accepted a new position as Foreman on an enhanced wage of €18.75. He was promised a new contract, which never materialised. He contended that the supervisory position was to serve as a disincentive for his leaving the employment

He told the hearing; he was unable to pay the credit account on leaving. He acknowledged that he had been directed to pay the credit account outstanding balance, but the deduction was illegally imposed as it did not carry his written consent.

He had also been denied “the week in hand “payment of €1106.02. His starting salary was €22,500 gross per annum

During cross examination, the complainant confirmed that he was actively engaged on opening a credit union account during the week prior to his two-week resignation dated 22 July 2025. He was not certain that he was aware that payment was going to be forced.

He clarified that payment was not actually due on the 5 transactions from June July 2025 as their credit terms on this account.

It was an account designated as “private use “.

The Respondent operates a Timber and Building supplies business and has rejected all three claims.

The Respondent outlined that Mr. Omahony was employed as a Branch Operative from 2 October 2017 until his resignation date of August 4, 2025.

CA-00074619-001   Payment of Wages

By means of written submission:

The Complainant maintained a personal account at the business and his owed balance stood at €650.23 as his employment was drawing to an end.

Mr. Noonan, Branch Manager, advised the complainant to prepare to repay this amount prior to his leaving date. The Complainant undertook to repay the amount.

A later internal clarification from the Credit Controller moved the undertaking by the complainant to a projected time post conclusion of employment, which remained unspecified.

The Respondent was dissatisfied by this inconsistency and deducted the sum of €650.23 as repeated efforts to settle this debt had been ignored by the complainant. The Complainant signaled his intention to refer his case to the WRC.

CA-00074619-002     Payment of Wages

The Respondent rejected the complainant reliance on the presence of a “lying week “at the business. The universal practice on commencement of employment centered on working a week in arrears and being paid the following week.

CA-00074619 -003 Statement of Terms of Employment

The Respondent exhibited a Company Statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment signed by both parties in January 2018.

Evidence of Tom Noonan, Branch Manager:

Mr Noonan outlined the credit account facility which hosted a staff discount of 25%. The balance owed of €650.23 reflected application of that discount.

He chronicled the efforts made to secure payment of the account prior to the complainants leaving.

The Complainant had argued that the sum could not be deducted from his wages.

He was unaware that the complainant was dissatisfied regarding unfulfilled promises on the complainant’s elevation as he had not raised matters with him

In cross examination, Mr Noonan reaffirmed the company imperative to receive payment prior to the complainant’s planned departure.

The Respondent concluded that the company acted responsibly in seeking to recoup a debt record through a staff loyalty / discount procedure.

The Respondent rejected the claim for payment of a week owed in arrears.

The Respondent relied on the foundation terms of employment signed by both parties in January 2018.

I have been requested to reach a decision in all three claims live at hearing on January 12, 2026. In reaching these decisions, I have listened carefully as evidence was adduced at hearing. I have also had regard for the written submissions inclusive of the final pay slip and the statements of the credit account.

It is apparent that this was employment with a fractured ending. The Complainant carried a sense of being ignored at the business and carried a high level of unease at how he was treated.

I would have liked to have seen a bi lateral trial at grievance here as I accept the Respondent dissatisfaction that they were hearing of some of the claims for the first time at WRC hearing.

This is not best practice.

CA-00074619-001   Payment of Wages

The Complainant has countered the action whereby the respondent recouped a sum of €650.23 net from wages when faced with the complainant’s defiance in settling his customer account on leaving employment.

Both parties came to hear certain of the justifications of their actions.

The parties did not engage in a local attempt at resolution through a grievance procedure.

The law on Payment of Wages is provided in Section 5(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

Regulation of certain deductions made, and payments received by employers.

5.— (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.

I accept that the complainant held a customer account with the respondent which carried a 25% localised reduction on purchases.

I accept that the respondent saw the customer account as an add on to the employment relationship, whereas the complainant saw them as separate and distinct entities.

For my part, I can see that the 25% deduction on business prices amounts to a work-related benefit.

But were there any visible rules around how this scheme is managed? I say not.

I have read and considered the Statement of terms, January 2018. It is silent on what should happen when a cessation of employment co incides with a preexisting client account balance.

The Labour Court in David Faulkner and Homebound Technical Services ltd PWD 222 considered the expectation of the respondent on recouping an education grant from a departing employee.

The Labour Court in finding for the Complainant

However, the Respondent relied on provisions in a handbook and in a contract, neither of which were specific enough to enable them to act as they did. As a result, the Complainant never agreed to the deductions concerned, had no way of knowing that the deductions would be made and entered into commitments without being in full possession of all facts. Ultimately, the Complainant is entitled to the protections of the Act because the Respondent failed to attain the authority necessary under the Act to make the deductions concerned. (my emphasis)

In Sullivan v Department of Education [1998] ELR 217, the EAT considered the words “properly “payable “in Section5(6) to be determinative They held that:

If an employee does not receive what is properly payable to him from the outset, then this can amount to a deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act

I can safely establish that the complainant had a legitimate expectation of receiving wages covering the last month of his employment. I find that the wages were properly payable, Sullivan applied.

I must now move to consider whether the deduction of that final salary fell within actions permitted under Section 5?

Section 10.2 of the 2018 terms does not address what should happen with the client account on cessation of employment.

Instead, I must conclude that the respondent had not attained the authority to deduct the sum of €650.23 net when they acted in the pay slip dated August 1, 2025.

I find this action contravened section 5(1) of the Act as no apparent authority existed under statute, contract, or written consent.

The sum of €650.23 amounted to a simple debt and not a contract debt.

The claim is well found.

CA-00074619-002     Payment of Wages

The Complainant has pursued a claim for an unpaid week in hand, which the respondent has no organizational knowledge of.

I cannot establish, on the evidence, that the Respondent operated the system, working 10 days and paying for 5 days, as contended by the Complainant.

I find that that this sum was not properly payable to the complainant. Marek Balans v Tesco Ireland ltd [2020] IEHC 55, applied.

The claim is not well founded.

CA-00074619 -003 Statement of Terms of Employment

The Complainant has submitted that he did not receive a statement of terms following his localsied promotion in December 2023. The Complainant resigned in August 2025.

The Respondent did not demonstrate a high level of Organisational knowledge regarding this development.

My authority in this case is drawn from.

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relation Act 2015

6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

and

Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

Notification of changes.

5.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than—

(a) the day on which the change takes effect,

(b) where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month, the time of the employee’s departure.

This claim is manifestly outside of the statutory time limits. There are no identifiable grounds to extend time on this occasion. The complainant placed the reported changes firmly to December 2023. He should have acted much sooner to seek protection from this law.

I find the claim is barred and I cannot take the matter further.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages act 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with section 6 of that Act.

CA-00074619-001   Payment of Wages

I have found the claim well founded. I order the Respondent pay the Complainant €650.23 nett as a just and equitable remedy in respect of the contravention of Section 5(1) of the Act.

I also recommend that the Respondent formulate a policy for the client account scheme to incorporate an action plan on employee cessation.

CA-00074619-002     Payment of Wages

The claim is not well founded.

CA-00074619 -003 Statement of Terms of Employment

Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with Section 5 of that Act.

I find the claim is barred and I cannot take the matter further.

Payment of wages, contract, simple debt. Statutory time limits, minimum notice.