Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Krzysztof  Cender

Onsite Facilities Management Limited

Representatives

Maureen Heffernan, Senior HR Consultant, NFP HR Solutions

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-00077023-001

31/10/2025

The Complainant has been employed by the Respondent as a chef since March 2007. On 31 October 2025 the Complainant referred a complaint to the WRC under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1991 Act). The complaint concerned the inclusion of Sunday premium payments in the calculation of holiday pay and sick pay.

The Complainant gave evidence that the Sunday premium formed an important element of his earnings. He stated that he often avoided taking annual leave on Sundays because he wished to receive the enhanced Sunday rate which would have been payable had he worked on those days.

The Complainant contended that the Respondent had failed to correctly include the Sunday premium element of his pay when calculating holiday pay and sick pay. He maintained that this had resulted in an underpayment of wages.

The Complainant referred to a previous WRC decision concerning Sunday premium payments and asserted that the issue had continued thereafter. He disputed the Respondent's position that the matter had been fully resolved.

The Respondent submitted that any issue concerning Sunday premium payments between 2019 and 2022 had already been determined in earlier WRC proceedings. It was submitted that compensation arising from that matter had been awarded and paid to the Complainant.

The Respondent accepted that a separate payroll issue arose after the earlier decision. It submitted that the payroll system failed to correctly account for Sunday premium payments where the Complainant was absent on annual leave or certified sick leave on a Sunday that he would otherwise have been rostered to work.

The Respondent stated that, upon discovering the error, it conducted a retrospective review of the Complainant's pay records from January 2023 onwards. The review identified a number of occasions on which the Sunday premium element had not been correctly reflected in holiday pay or sick pay calculations.

The Respondent submitted that the total shortfall identified amounted to €1,200. This amount was paid to the Complainant on 15 October 2025, prior to the referral of the present complaint. The Respondent further submitted that the payroll system had been corrected, that it had apologised to the Complainant for the error and that no further monies were outstanding.

The Respondent also submitted that all but one of the dates relied upon by the Complainant fell outside the six-month cognisable period. It submitted that, in any event, the retrospective payment of €1,200 encompassed all amounts identified as outstanding, including any amount arising within the cognisable period.

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted by the parties, the oral evidence adduced at the hearing summarised above and the oral and written submissions made by and on behalf of the parties at the hearing.

In considering whether the Complainant's wages were the subject of an unlawful deduction, it is necessary to have regard to the relevant provisions of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1991 Act”).

Section 1 of the 1991 Act defines “wages” broadly and includes holiday pay and sick pay. Section 5(6) of the 1991 Act provides that where the total amount of wages paid on any occasion is less than the amount properly payable, the deficiency is treated as a deduction for the purposes of the 1991 Act.

In Marek Balans v Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55, the High Court confirmed that, when considering a complaint under the 1991 Act, the first question to be determined is what wages were properly payable to the employee. Only once that question has been answered can it be determined whether there has been a deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act.

Accordingly, the issue for determination in the present case is whether, within the cognisable period, there remained any wages properly payable to the Complainant which had not been paid by the Respondent.

The complaint was referred to the WRC on 31 October 2025. Accordingly, the cognisable period extends to 1 May 2025 unless an extension of time applies. No application for an extension of time was made.

The Complainant's WRC complaint form asserted that the Respondent had failed to include the Sunday premium element of his remuneration in the calculation of holiday pay and sick pay. In his oral evidence, the Complainant referred both to the period which had been the subject of earlier WRC proceedings and to a number of subsequent occasions on which he maintained that Sunday premium had not been correctly reflected in holiday pay or sick pay calculations. He stated that the Sunday premium formed an important part of his earnings and that he frequently avoided taking annual leave on Sundays because he wished to receive the enhanced Sunday rate payable for working on those days.

I note that the Complainant's complaint form expressly referred to a previous WRC decision issued in January 2023 concerning Sunday premium payments. The Respondent submitted, and I accept, that issues concerning Sunday premium payments arising between 2019 and 2022 were addressed in those proceedings and that compensation awarded in respect of those matters has been paid to the Complainant. In those circumstances, I have confined my consideration of the present complaint to the matters arising after that decision and to any alleged deficiencies which fall within the cognisable period applicable to this complaint.

The Respondent accepted that a separate payroll issue subsequently arose in relation to the treatment of Sunday premium payments during periods of annual leave and paid sick leave. The Respondent's evidence was that a payroll system error resulted in the Sunday premium element not being correctly reflected in certain holiday pay and sick pay calculations between 2023 and 2025.

The Respondent further gave evidence that, upon discovering the error, it undertook a retrospective review of the Complainant's payroll records. That review identified a number of occasions on which the Sunday premium had not been correctly included and calculated that the total shortfall amounted to €1,200. The Respondent's evidence was that this amount was paid to the Complainant on 15 October 2025, prior to the referral of the present complaint. The Respondent also corrected the payroll system to ensure that the error would not recur and apologised to the Complainant.

In response to questions from the Adjudication Officer, the Complainant accepted that he received the sum of €1,200. While the Complainant maintained that the €1,200 payment did not adequately compensate him for the alleged underpayments, he did not produce any calculations or other documentary evidence demonstrating that additional sums remained outstanding. Nor did he identify any specific deficiency in wages properly payable within the cognisable period which had not already been addressed by the retrospective payment made by the Respondent. I note further that much of the period to which the Complainant's evidence related pre-dated the cognisable period applicable to this complaint.

Having regard to the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Respondent identified the payroll error, calculated the resulting shortfall and paid the sum of €1,200 to the Complainant before the complaint was referred to the WRC. That payment encompassed both the occasion relied upon by the Respondent as falling within the cognisable period and the earlier occasions falling outside it. I am further satisfied that the Complainant has not established, on the balance of probabilities, that any additional amount was properly payable and unpaid.

Applying the principles identified by the High Court in Marek Balans v Tesco Ireland Limited, I am not satisfied that the Complainant has established that there were wages properly payable to him which had not been paid by the Respondent. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

For the reasons set out above, I decide that the complaint is not well founded.