Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Gary  Doyle

Valeo Foods Ireland

Representatives

Self-represented

Aoife McGookin 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-00075978-001

02/10/2025

The Complainant is employed by the Respondent as a general operative on the night shift, in the Respondents Cabra site in Dublin City. He commenced employment on the 13 April 2022. The Complainant is paid weekly at the rate of €16.77 per hour, inclusive of 20%-night shift allowance.

The Complainant made a claim pursuant to Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Acts 1991 (as amended) (“the Act”) alleging that he was not paid his wages for weeks 39-42 inclusive in the year 2025. September and October of 2025.

The Complainant represented himself. His initial submissions made the following arguments:

1. Introduction to the Breach

This complaint is brought against Valeo Foods (the Respondent) under Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, concerning the unlawful deduction and/or withholding of wages properly payable to me. The Respondent failed to pay wages for a period of 68 days, transitioning from an initial

administrative error into a deliberate and illegal conditioning of my pay.

2. Prior Notice and Initial Negligence

On September 23, 2025, prior to the finalisation of the payroll run, I provided explicit written notice to the Respondent (specifically, Aisling) that my bank account had been closed. Despite this pre-emptive warning, the Respondent proceeded to process the wage transfer to the closed account. While initially acknowledged as an administrative failure on their part, the Respondent failed to take immediate remedial action to issue an off cycle payment.

3. Provision of Active Bank Details

On October 17, 2025, I provided the Respondent with full, active, and valid alternative banking details (IBAN) to facilitate the immediate transfer of the outstanding wages. Receipt of these details was acknowledged. Under the Payment of Wages Act, the employer's statutory obligation is to pay the employee; there is no legal provision allowing an employer to delay payment once valid account details are provided.

4. The Illegal Conditioning of Wages

By October 28, 2025, the Respondent’s handling of the matter shifted from negligence to intentional withholding. In written communication Aisling explicitly refused to release the owed wages unless I personally sourced and provided "bank reference numbers" from my financial institution. This constitutes an illegal condition placed upon my wages. It shifted the Respondent's administrative burden onto the Complainant and used my unpaid wages as leverage to enforce it. The Act strictly prohibits an employer from withholding properly payable wages pending the completion of administrative tasks by the employee.

5. The 68-Day Delay

As a direct result of the Respondent's initial negligence (ignoring the September 23 warning) and their subsequent unlawful refusal to process payment to the new account provided on October 17, I was

deprived of my wages for a total of 68 days. The financial records confirm the timeline of this indefensible delay.

Conclusion

The documentary evidence demonstrates that Aisling, acting on behalf of the Respondent, was fully aware of the situation, possessed the means to rectify it as of October 17, but made a deliberate choice to withhold payment until arbitrary and unlawful conditions were met. I am seeking redress for this severe breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991

RELIEF SOUGHT:

Under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in respect of breaches of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, I am seeking the maximum allowable compensation (twice the net amount of the withheld wages). The 68-day delay, exacerbated by the Respondent's illegal conditioning and refusal to utilise

active bank details, caused significant financial disruption. The evidence demonstrates that the Respondent was not merely negligent but intentionally withheld properly payable wages pending the completion of administrative tasks by the Complainant.

The Complainant made further submissions and gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing on the 24th of June 2026.

The Respondent delivered written submissions which included the following;

Background to the Claim

On 23 September 2025, the Complainant emailed Aisling O'Sullivan (HR Business Partner) Jenny Abbey (Payroll) and Kamia Sienica (Payroll) requesting that his wages be paid in cash. He advised his bank on file could no longer accept funds

Ms O'Sullivan replied advising we do not process wages in cash and advised if he needed any further documentation to support his application for new bank account to let her know.

The Complainant further replied that company must provide “readily negotiable” payment method which can be cashed. Ms O’Sullivan replied reiterating no payments in cash would be made, as per the Complainants contract of employment, for his payment of wages, in particular that this is made via electronic bank transfer to his nominated bank account.

On 13 October, the Complainant contacted advising his old bank would not lodge his money. He requested that no wages be sent. However, did not provide an alternative bank. Ms O’Sullivan replied they would continue to pay to the bank on file until he provided another method.

On 17 October, the Complainant provided new bank details. The Respondent initiated a process of getting the wages remitted so they could be repaid to the new account. Ms Aisling Brennann engaged in correspondence with the Complainant to keep him informed during this process.

All wages were paid in full to the Complainant by 11 December 2025.

Respondents position

The Respondent refutes the claim under the Payment of Wages Act taking into account the operation of his contract in reality and the established norms of the Respondent more generally. The Complainants contract of employment clearly states,

“You will be paid by credit transfer to your nominated bank account and issued a payslip.”

The Complainant wrote to the Respondent on 23 September to notify that his usual bank account could no longer receive funds. The Respondent replied to this correspondence stating that it was too late for that pay run for payment details to be changed, however if he provided the new bank details, they would process a separate payment

The Respondent processed the payment as normal and did not receive any bounce back of the wages. The Respondent, continue to process the Complainants wages in line with normal process, until 17 October when a change of bank detail from was completed.

As the wages went to the account the Respondent had on file for the Complainant, and they did not receive a bounce back, they had to go through a process to get the wages remitted to the company in order to process them again into the Complainants new account.

The company acted quickly to get the wages paid, however there was some delay to the processing of week 40, due to the old bank had not released back his payment. The Respondent engaged with the bank and the Complainant to get this sorted.

Ultimately all wages due were paid to the complainant on 11 December, a breakdown of wages is provided below [Discussed in “Findings” Section below]

The Complainant is arguing that there was a deficiency in the payment of his wages. The Payment of Wages Act, 1991, under section 5(6) states:

“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, […] then […] the amount of the deficiency […] shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion”.

Thus, the important element to establish is what were the wages “properly payable” to the employee on “that occasion”. The Respondent contends that the wages “properly payable” to the employee were the wages as advised to him in his contract of employment and in line with the process set out in it.

It is the Respondent’s position that, the Respondent has paid compensation of the Complainant’s wage and, no deficiency within the meaning of the act occurred. Consequently, there is no live dispute to be resolved between the parties. The case is moot.

In Goold v Collins [2004] IEHC 38, the Supreme Court accepted that where there is no longer any legal dispute between the parties the principle of mootness applies when it held that mootness means “when a decision will not have the effect of resolving some controversy affecting orpotentially affecting rights of parties”.

Conclusion

In light of all of the above, the Respondent believes that they always acted fairly, and therefore, respectfully requests that the Adjudicator find in favour of the Respondent in this case.

The Respondent made further submissions at the hearing on the 24th of June 2026. Evidence was also given on affirmation by Ms. Jenny Abbey of the Respondent’s Payroll Department and by Ms. Aisling O’Sullivan, the Respondent’s HR Business Partner.

Legislative Provisions

The Payment of Wages Act 1991 (as amended) (“The Act”) where relevant provides as follows:

Section 2 provides for the methods whereby wages “may” be paid as follows:

“2.—(1) Wages may be paid by and only by one or more of the following modes:

(a) a cheque, draft or other bill of exchange within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882,

(b) a document issued by a person who maintains an account with the Central Bank of Ireland or a holder of a licence under section 9 of the Central Bank Act, 1971, which, though not such a bill of exchange as aforesaid, is intended to enable a person to obtain payment from that bank or that holder of the amount specified in the document,

(c) a draft payable on demand drawn by a holder of such a licence as aforesaid upon himself, whether payable at the head office or some other office of the bank to which the licence relates,

(d) a postal, money or paying order, or a warrant, or any other like document, issued by or drawn on An Post or a document issued by an officer of a Minister of the Government that is intended to enable a person to obtain payment from that Minister of the Government of the sum specified in the document,

(e) a document issued by a person who maintains an account with a trustee savings bank within the meaning of the Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1989, that is intended to enable a person to obtain payment from the bank of the sum specified in the document, (f) a credit transfer or another mode of payment whereby an amount is credited to an account specified by the employee concerned,

(g) cash,

(h) any other mode of payment standing specified for the time being by regulations made by the Minister after consultation with the Minister for Finance.

(2) Where wages fall to be paid to an employee by a mode other than cash at a time when, owing to a strike or other industrial action affecting a financial institution, cash is not readily available to the employee, the employer concerned shall, if the employee consents, pay the wages by another mode (other than cash) specified in subsection (1) and, if the employee does not so consent, pay them in cash.

(3) An employer who pays wages to an employee otherwise than by a mode specified in subsection (1) or contravenes subsection (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000.”

Section 5 (1) prohibits unlawful deductions from wages which include as per section 5 (6) (b) a non payment of wages.

“5.—(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee

Subsection (6) of the Act provides

(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.”

The Complainant also cited the WRC Explanatory Booklet on Payment of Wages which at paragraph 1.1 states that on of the key right established in the Act is “a right to a readily negotiable mode of wage payment”.

Sequence of Events

The facts of the matter were largely undisputed and save where the contrary is indicated, were agreed as follows:

The Complainant said that from the outset of his employment up to September 2025 he used an account which was a pre-paid credit card account to receive his wages. The banking regulations are such that whenever the funds into that account exceed a certain amount in a certain period a passport or driver’s licence is required before the account can be accessed any further. The issue arose in the past on several occasions but the Complainant (who did not have the identification documentation) arranged for his wages to be temporarily paid into the account of another employee of the Respondent. However, when the issue was notified to the Complainant by the account provider again in August 2025 the Complainant was informed by his line manager that he would no longer be permitted to have his wages paid into a colleague’s account but that he could have them paid into the account of someone outside the company. On the 22nd of September 2025 the Complainant received a notification from his account provider informing him that the account was suspended pending receipt of identification documentation. This account will be referred to as “the Suspended Account”. The Complainant did not have the required identification documentation and could not access the account. 

On the 22nd of September 2025 at 8:01 am, the Complainant sent an email to the internal email address of Ms. Osullivan the Respondent’s HR Business Partner as follows:

“I am writing to formally address an issue regarding my wages for the pay period ending on 25/09/2025. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. As you may be aware, my usual bank account is no longer able to receive funds. My wages, which are due to be paid on Thursday, will be sent to my old account and will not be received. The issue is with my account provider {NAME], which requires a passport or driver’s license for ID verification, which I do not currently have. I informed my manager, [NAME], of this situation on 22/09/2025.

I am in the process of setting up a new bank account with [NAMED BANK], as they have confirmed I can open one with the documents I have. I have an appointment scheduled for today to do so.

I understand that the company’s standard practice is to pay via direct credit transfer. However under the payment of Wages Act 1991, an employer is obligated to pay and employee in a “readily negotiable” method. As I do not have a functional bank account and am currently unable to cash a cheque due to the issue and lack of a bank account, the only readily negotiable method of payment for me is cash.

Therefore I am formally requesting that you arrange for my wages for this week to be paid in cash. This would ensure that I receive my lawful wages on time, in accordance with my employment rights.  Will provide my new bank account details to the payroll department as soon as my new account is active.

I hope we can resolve this matter amicably without undue delay. Please let me know what steps you are taking to rectify this situation. “

At 8:53 am the same morning, the Complainant sent the following email to the Respondent’s Payroll Department:

“My wages are scheduled to be sent today. Tuesday, to my bank account. Please be aware that my usual bank account is no longer able to receive funds.

To avoid the payment being rejected, I kindly ask that if the payment has not already been sent, you do not transfer it to my old account. I have formally informed HR of the situation and am awaiting instructions on how my wages will be paid in an alternative readily negotiable method.

I will provide my new bank account details as soon as it is active.”

The Payroll Department responded at 9:17 am to say that it was too late to make any changes and requesting the new bank account details.

Ms. Doyle responded to the email from the Complainant sent at 8:01 to say:

“We cannot process cash payments for wages as there is no facility for this and it is due to revenue requirements. If you have a [Account and bank specified] we can pay in to this. We require a bank account in order to process your payments.”

[The Bank referred to is commonly used in Ireland

to send and receive money using a well-known card]

In evidence Ms. Abbey said that it would not have been possible to retrieve this payment once the payroll data had been transferred to the Respondent’s bank for payment of the wages for the entire workforce numbering approximately 235 individuals. The Complainant said although he was not in a position to challenge this evidence, he accepted it.

The salary payment for Week 39 was authorised for payment on the 23rd of September and was paid out by the Respondent to the Suspended Account on the 25th of September 2025. Thereafter the Respondent continued to pay the Complainant’s wages into the Suspended Account for Weeks 40 -42 inclusive as follows:

Week                    Date                                                   Amount paid

39                         25 September 2025                       €726.55

40                          2 October 2025                             €401.50

41                          9 October 2025                             €375.62

42                         16 October 2025                             €523.07

The Complainant received payslips in each of these weeks, but he could not access the funds which, he was informed by the provider of the Suspended Account, were not in the account. Ms. Abbey said in evidence that she would normally expect a returned payment to be notified within 24 hours. She kept checking the account but there were no returned payments from the provider of the Suspended Account. The Respondent’s Payroll Department paid the Complainant’s wages into the Suspended Account for week 40.

On the 7th of October 2025 a notification was received by the Respondent’s payroll Department that the first payment (in respect of Week 39) was returned. This notification was received two days before the payment date for Week 41 was due for payment. Ms. Abbey said that the circumstances in respect of Week 41 were similar to those that pertained in relation to Week 39 in that, by the 7th of October 2025 it was too late to stop the instruction to the Respondent’s bank to pay into the Suspended Account on the 9th of October 2025 which is what occurred. 

There were email exchanges on the 13th of October 2025. The Complainant sent screenshots by emails to the Respondent showing that the payments had been sent back. He reiterated that he “instructed payroll not to send them in the first place as the account couldn’t receive them. The Complainant also stated: “it’s a month now since I received any pay.” The Complainant gave evidence that he endured hardship as a result of not receiving any wages which is discussed below.

It was common case that when the Complainant supplied account details for another account (“the New Account”) on the 17th of October 2025, the wages for Weeks 39-41 were paid into this account albeit not at the same time but according to the following agreed timeline:

Summary of wages repaid to new bank account:

Relating to Week             Paid on                              Amount

Week 39                             17 October 2025              €726.55

Week 41 and 42               30 October 2025              €898.69

Week 40                             11 December 2025          €401.50

The Complainant also clarified that from the 17th of October 2025 and to date, the wage payment situation is regularised and his normal wages were and continue to be paid at normal intervals thereafter.

Aside from the refusal to pay his wages in cash following his email of the 23rd of September 2025, the Complainant was further aggrieved arising from the Respondent’s failure to pay his back-dated wages for all the relevant weeks (39-42) on or about the 17th of October 2025 when he provided his New Account details. It was common case that the Complainant was informed by the Respondent that the outstanding wages for those weeks would not be paid until the corresponding payment, which had been made to the Suspended Account, had been returned by the provider of that account. On the 17th of October 2025 only once such payment -  the payment for Week 39 - had been returned by that provider: the other payments were made as soon as the corresponding returns were received from the provider of the Suspended Account.

Analysis and Findings

This case is not concerned with outstanding unpaid wages per se since it is agreed that the wages for the relevant period (Weeks 39-42 2025 inclusive) were eventually paid in full on each of the agreed dates referred to above. However, that is not the end of the matter as the Complainant argued that there was a delay in the payment of his wages, and he contended that the failure by the Respondent to pay his wages on each of the agreed pay dates was a non-payment. Thus, he alleged that the Act was breached on each date when the wages for each of the relevant weeks fell due for payment as he did not receive the wages when they were due, i.e. on the regular pay dates for each of the weeks. Further the Complainant argued that whatever about the failure to pay the wages on the usual pay date for each of the weeks there was no justification for the failure to pay him for all of the outstanding weeks, and not just Week 39, as soon as he provided the bank details for the New Account. I shall consider these two distinct arguments separately.

The Failure to Pay the Complainant’s Wages when they fell due.

A failure to pay wages on the agreed date is a potential breach of Section 5 (6) Paragraph (b). The fact that that the Complainant did not receive his wages on the due dates for payment on any of the relevant weeks (39-42 inclusive) was accepted by the Respondent. The Respondent’s unilateral decision to pay all the wages into the Suspended Account did not alter the situation from the Complainant’s point of view. The measure did not bring about a situation where the Complainant received his wages. Thus notwithstanding the payment into the Suspended Account, the situation in practical terms remained one of non-payment. Thus (although that payment did have other implications which are discussed below) it does not establish compliance with Section 5 (6) because the wages were not received. However, it does not automatically follow that the Respondent must be deemed liable for a breach of Section 5 (6) in the circumstances of this case.

Section 5 of the Act refers to wages which are “properly payable” but the Act is silent on the issue which arises in the present case which is whether the wages had to be paid in a different manner than that which was agreed by the parties in the contract of employment.  In the present case the agreed method of payment was by credit transfer to the Complainant’s nominated account.  No alternative method was provided for in the contract, and it is thus evident that the parties did not consider the situation which arose when the contract was concluded. That situation was one where the Complainant had no access to the account which was the nominated account because that account could not receive any funds. The parties were thus presented with a situation which was not contemplated by the contract of employment, and I will now examine how the issue was handled.

The Respondent received a written notification from the Complainant, that as and from the date of that communication, his “usual bank account [would] no longer [be] able to receive funds” and that his “wages, which [were] due to be paid on Thursday, will be sent to [his] old account and will not be received as and from the 23rd of September 2025”. My interpretation of the foregoing statement is that there no longer existed a “nominated account” for the purposes of processing the payment of the Complainant’s wages. The contract of employment placed an obligation on the Complainant to nominate an account to facilitate the payment of his wages. By any reasonable interpretation the communication on the 23rd of September 2025 had the plain meaning that the account which had been nominated was no longer nominated. This left a situation where, in the absence of the nomination of another account, there was no account into which the wages could “properly” be paid and thus an essential precondition for the payment of wages had not been satisfied by the Complainant which rendered payment in accordance with the method provided for in the contract impossible. My conclusion is that the Respondent was prevented from paying the wages in accordance with the contract which would indicate that the Respondent was not in breach of Section 5 (6) as it could not have paid the wages properly in accordance with the contract.

It is arguable that the foregoing conclusion would be sufficient to dispose of the question as to whether non-payment was a breach of the Act, but for the sake of completeness, I have considered whether a reasonable alternative to non-payment existed in the circumstances. Leaving aside the measure which the Respondent did adopt (which did not solve the problem and in fact created another problem as discussed below) I have considered whether any other alternatives should have been considered.

The Respondent’s case was that the Complainant presented no alternatives other than a demand for cash with which The Respondent could comply. The Complainant said no alternatives were suggested to him by the Respondent. I asked both parties whether a cheque could have issued and both said that the other did not suggest this as a solution, although the Respondent did say (albeit hypothetically) that this could have been arranged. As regards the way the Complainant approached the problem, I have considered his email to Ms. O’Sullivan on the 23rd of September 2025.  It made reference to the Act as providing a right to a “readily negotiable” method of payment. At the hearing the Complainant accepted that this phrase does not appear in the Act. However, as the Complainant explained in a submission, it is used on the WRC Explanatory Booklet. As appears from the extract from that publication quoted above the phrase is used but the booklet is prefaced by the following words:

“This booklet gives general guidance about the above-named Act and is not a legal interpretation. Its purpose is to present in non-legal language an outline of the rights and obligations of employers and employees provided for in the Act.

In cases of doubt or where further information is required, please refer to the Act or contact Employment Rights Information Unit, Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment”

In any event the phrase “readily negotiable” suggests that which can be readily negotiated or converted into cash rather than cash itself. For the avoidance of doubt I find as a matter of law that in the circumstances of this case the Complainant was not legally entitled to be paid in cash whether pursuant to any provision of the Act or pursuant to his contract. It is also the case that the Complainant did not make any further suggestions or leave any other options open for discussion. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not find that the Respondent’s refusal to pay cash was unlawful or unreasonable.

The Complainant also provided some detail as to the personal financial hardship which he suffered as a result of not receiving his wages. The Respondent was not made aware of these details until the Complainant provided them during the hearings. As to why the Complainant did not advise the Respondent of the level of personal hardship he was experiencing, he said that was told by his local line-manager to take the issue up with HR. The Complainant said that he did not find the responses from HR to be helpful and he was reluctant to engage further and even if he had wanted to, he had no telephone number for HR. The Contract of employment refers to the grievance procedure in the company handbook, but it is the case that a telephone number for HR is not provided in the contract or handbook; only an email address is provided. Ms. O’Sullivan said that her telephone number was at the footer of her emails to the Complainant.

On the overall issue, insofar as it is relevant to this aspect of the matter at all, as to whether an alternative method of payment was possible, I find that there was insufficient engagement between the parties but given that the banking issue was one which was not of the Respondent’s making, the fact that the Complainant’s demand for cash was incorrectly cited as being in the nature of a legal entitlement and the fact that the Complainant kept to himself the realities of his financial hardship I do not find that there was any realistic alternative method of payment of the wages in the circumstances other than by the means specified in the contract.

Accordingly, I find that the fact that the Complainant did not receive his wages when they fell due on each of the relevant weeks does not establish a breach of Section 5 (6) by the Respondent.

The Failure to Pay the Outstanding Wages on the 17th of October 2025

The Complainant provided the New Account details on the 17th of October 2025. the Respondent did not pay the wages for weeks 39-42 inclusive in one lump sum into this account but instead paid the wages for each week only when the corresponding payment made into the Suspended Account

was returned by the provider of that account. The result was that only week 39 was paid on the 17th of October 2025 but there was a delay of 13 days before weeks 41 and 42 were paid (total €898.69) and the payment for week 40 (total €401.50) was delayed until the  11th of  December 2025, a period of 56 calendar days or 8 weeks from the 17th of October 2025.

The Respondent accepted that it had been asked not to pay into the Suspended Account. However, it was contended by the Respondent that there was no choice but to do so as the only alternative suggested by the Complainant had been cash which was not possible. Moreover, the Respondent took the view that failure to pay the Complainant’s wages would have placed the Respondent in breach of the Act. For the reasons set out above I do not accept that non-payment due to a breakdown of the payment method not caused by the Respondent would have rendered the Respondent liable for a breach of the Act. Whilst I accept that the Respondent was trying to comply with its contractual obligations to pay the Complainant’s wages, the strategy adopted was unilateral and went against the Complainant’s explicit instructions. Moreover, and of more significance to this aspect of the claim, the Respondent made a further unilateral decision not to pay to the Complainant any of the outstanding wages from the relevant period (Weeks 39-42) until the corresponding payments, which had been made to the Suspended Account, were returned by the provider of that account. The Complainant contended that he should not have been made to wait for the corresponding payments to be refunded as they should not have been made in the first place. I find that this argument is well-founded.

When, on the 17th of October 2025, the Complainant forwarded the details for his New Account to the Respondent, this had the effect of removing the previous impediment to proper payment in accordance with the contract which had been caused by the suspension of the previously nominated account. Accordingly, I find that all of the outstanding wages for Weeks 39-42 became payable on that date and that they should all have been paid in full on or about that date. As it transpired, only Week 39 was paid and thus there was a non-payment of the wages for the other weeks which constitutes a breach of Section 5 (6) Paragraph (b). However, it is also the case that those wages were eventually paid and thus the loss of wages to the Complainant was mitigated in full. That said, there was a delay in payment of the wages for weeks 40-42 inclusive. For this reason, the claim is not moot as contended by the Respondent as the issue of delay was not mitigated by the eventual payment of the wages.

I now turn to consider whether the Complainant is entitled to compensation in respect of the delay and if so, in what amount.

Section 6 of the Act provides (where relevant) as follows:

6. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section … 5as respects a deduction made by an employer from the wages …of an employee … that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction … shall include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances

not exceeding—

(a) the net amount of the wages, or tip or gratuity as the case may be(after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that—

(i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or

(ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,

or

(b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred

to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.

The power conferred by the above provision permits an order of compensation as is considered reasonable in the circumstances and it is not limited to the amount of the deduction but may extend to twice that amount. It is thus the case that the adjudication officer is granted a certain latitude to award compensation beyond the amount of the deduction as is considered reasonable in the circumstances, provided the total award does not exceed twice the amount unlawfully deducted. In the present case the amount unlawfully deducted by way of nonpayment from the 17th of October 2025 comprised the outstanding wages for Weeks 40 – 42 inclusive which was a total of €1,300.19 and thus the maximum award which can be made arising from that unlawful deduction is €2,600.38. However in the present case there can be no question of an award in respect of the wages unpaid since they were (eventually) paid in full in two tranches and the only issue to be considered is whether and if so in what amount, the Complainant is to be compensated for the inconvenience caused to him by the delay in payment beyond the 17th of October 2025.

I consider it reasonable to make an award of compensation to the Complainant in the circumstances.  for the breach of his statutory rights arising – and arising only – from the delay in paying his wages for Weeks 40 – 42 inclusive as and from the 17th of October 2025. The award cannot include an amount for resultant financial costs incurred such as the cost of borrowing or interest rates on an overdrawn bank account as the Complainant did not make any such claim. Furthermore, although the Complainant did allege serious financial hardship – by which he meant that he was left without any money to buy food or pay his LUAS fare – that financial hardship must have been at its most pressing during the initial period between the 23rd of September and the 17th of October 2025. I have already found that the Respondent was not liable for any breach of the Act during this period and it must therefore follow that the Respondent is not liable to compensate the Complainant for any loss, howsoever arising, during this period. I am also mindful that that the Complainant did receive his wages for Week 39 on the 17th of October 2025 and was in receipt of his regular wages thereafter and thus he must have been able to cover his living expenses from then on if not in full then at least in part. That said, the Complainant was nonetheless put to inconvenience by being left without his wages for the periods referred to above and he was further inconvenienced in having to set aside his time to initiate and pursue the present claim.

In all the circumstances I deem and award of €500 to be the appropriate measure of compensation and I shall direct the Respondent to pay that amount to the Complainant by way of non-remuneration-based compensation for breach of his statutory rights. Given the nature of the award, it is intended to come within the scope of Section 192A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (as amended) and should not be liable to tax pursuant to Subsection (6) of that provision.

CA-00075978-001 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 - The Complaint pursuant to Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is well-founded in part and the Respondent is directed to pay to the Complainant the sum of €500 by way of non-remuneration based compensation for breach of his statutory rights.

Payment of Wages Act 1991 – Section (2) -  Section (5) – Section (6) – Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer – Suspended Account – Delay in payment – Compensation