Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Agustina  Gallegos

Claire’s Accessories

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-00075638-001

22/09/2025

This complaint concerns the Respondent’s failure to pay the Complainant her notice entitlement following the termination of her employment on 16 June 2025.

The Complainant stated that her employment was terminated at the end of her probationary period by letter dated 16 June 2025. She relied on that letter as establishing a clear entitlement to one month’s notice, which the Respondent confirmed would be paid in lieu rather than worked.

She asserted that, despite this express commitment, the Respondent failed to make the payment in lieu of notice. The Complainant stated that this sum was properly due to her as part of her final wages and that its non-payment amounts to an unlawful deduction under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

The Respondent did not attend on the day of the hearing to give evidence.

The Complainant stated that she was seeking compensation in respect of her outstanding wages from the Respondent.

The approach to be taken when adjudicating on a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is set out in Marek Balans v Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55, approving Dunnes Stores (Cornelscourt) Limited v Lacey [2007] 1 IR 478. Specifically, a decision-maker must first determine what wages are properly payable under the employment contract before determining whether there has been a deduction under Section 5(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

Section 5(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides:

“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.”

In examining this complaint, I note that the Complainant’s employment was terminated by letter dated 16 June 2025. That letter stated that the Complainant did not successfully pass her probationary period and that her employment was terminated with immediate effect.  Critically, the same letter set out the terms upon which the termination would take place. It stated clearly that the Complainant was “entitled to receive 1 month’s notice” and that she would not be required to work that notice but would instead receive a payment in lieu. The Respondent also confirmed that a payment in lieu of notice would form part of the Complainant’s final termination payment.

The Complainant gave evidence that this notice payment was not made. This evidence was straightforward and credible, and in the absence of any appearance by the Respondent, it was not contradicted.

In circumstances where the Respondent failed to attend the hearing, has not disputed the Complainant’s evidence, and where its own written correspondence establishes the entitlement, I am satisfied that the payment in lieu of notice remains outstanding and unlawfully deducted.

Accordingly, I find that the complaint is well founded.

I find that the complaint is well founded for the reasons set out above and direct that the Respondent makes a payment to the Complainant in the amount of €2,880 net.