Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Dongming  Hou

Buildify Construction and Technology Limited

Representatives

Pretty Ndawo, Migrant Rights Centre Ireland

No Attendance

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00078158-001

01/12/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00078158-002

01/12/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00078158-003 DUPLICATE

01/12/2025

The Complainant is a Chinese national who commenced employment with the Respondent in or around July 2024. The Respondent operated a construction business. The Complainant was recruited following discussions regarding a position as a Construction Engineer and entered employment on the understanding that the Respondent would assist him in obtaining an employment permit. The Complainant's understanding was that he would initially receive remuneration of €1,600 per month during a probationary period and that his remuneration would subsequently increase following successful completion of that probationary period.

The Complainant remained employed until 26 March 2025. During the course of the employment, he conducted a range of construction-related duties at various sites operated by the Respondent. Accommodation was also provided by the Respondent during the employment. Upon the termination of the employment, the Complainant was required to vacate that accommodation.

The complaints before me arise from the Complainant's contention that he continually worked more hours than those for which he was remunerated and that his pay, when assessed against the hours actually worked, fell below the statutory minimum entitlement prescribed by the National Minimum Wage Act 2000. The Complainant further contends that he did not receive paid annual leave, nor any payment in lieu of accrued annual leave, during the period of his employment.

The Complainant accordingly referred complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 and the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 seeking arrears of wages and compensation in respect of unpaid annual leave entitlements. The Respondent did not attend the hearing and did not participate in the proceedings.

A preliminary issue arose regarding the time period for submission of complaints. The Complainant’s contract was terminated on 26 March 2025, but the complaints were submitted on 1 December 2025, which is outside the six-month period from the last reported infraction. The Complainant sought an extension of the time period due to reasonable cause, and this is dealt with below as a preliminary issue in my findings.

Preliminary Issue – Extension of Time:

The Complainant's employment ended on 26 March 2025. The complaints were not referred to the Workplace Relations Commission until 1 December 2025.

The Complainant's representative submitted that following the termination of his employment the Complainant found himself in an exceptionally vulnerable position. I heard evidence that his accommodation had been tied to his employment and that he was required to vacate that accommodation immediately upon the termination of his employment. I further heard evidence that he had limited English language skills, was unfamiliar with Irish employment rights legislation and procedures, and was experiencing uncertainty concerning his immigration and employment permit status. Evidence was also given that he spent a period attempting to recover monies directly from the Respondent before eventually obtaining assistance from the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland.

Substantive Issue – Minimum Wage:

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent between July 2024 and 26 March 2025. The employment arose following discussions regarding a position as a Construction Engineer and included assurances that the Respondent would assist in obtaining an employment permit. The role was understood to involve engineering-related duties and a probationary period during which remuneration would be €1,600 per month, with an increase to a market rate following successful completion of probation.

During the course of the employment, duties extended beyond engineering functions and included a range of construction-related tasks such as painting, electrical installation, and plumbing work. Although the anticipated working pattern was described as 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., the case advanced was that the actual hours worked were greater.

Reliance was placed upon photographic records generated through a WeChat work group used by the Respondent to monitor attendance. Employees were required to upload photographs when commencing and finishing work (exhibited). These records contained timestamps and location information and were presented as contemporaneous evidence of the hours worked throughout the employment.

An analysis of those records was undertaken for the period from 2 September 2024 to 7 December 2024, being the period for which the most complete records were available. Based upon that analysis, the average working week was calculated at 56.76 hours. Examples drawn from the records showed regular working days in excess of ten hours and weekly totals significantly above the hours envisaged by the written contract.

The remuneration received throughout the employment was approximately €1,600 per month, ordinarily consisting of €800 paid by bank transfer and a further €800 paid in cash. Apart from one month during which a higher payment was received, remuneration remained unchanged notwithstanding the volume of hours worked.

The submissions further outlined that a request for a statement of average hourly pay had been issued to the Respondent pursuant to section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000. While the correspondence was delivered, no response was received. It was submitted that the Respondent failed to provide the statutory information sought and did not engage with subsequent correspondence concerning the complaints.

It was submitted that when the actual hours worked were assessed against the applicable statutory minimum wage rates, the remuneration received fell below the minimum entitlement prescribed by the National Minimum Wage Act 2000. Detailed calculations were furnished showing the difference between the statutory entitlement and the sums received. Those calculations produced a claimed underpayment of €12,151.34 over the duration of the employment.

Annual Leave:

The Complainant also relied upon evidence that no annual leave was taken during the employment and that no payment was made in respect of annual leave entitlement. Using the hours worked and the statutory formula contained in section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, the value of accrued annual leave was calculated at €2,106.02.

Legal Argument:

In relation to redress, reliance was placed upon authorities including Sue Ryder Foundation Ireland Ltd v Maureen Meenagh MWD051, A Trainee Solicitor v Law Firm ADJ-00020327 and Imtiaz Ahmed Ranjha Sky Solicitors v Imtiaz Khan MWD212. It was submitted that, where a breach of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 is established, arrears may be awarded in respect of the entire period to which the dispute relates. Accordingly, an award of €12,151.34 was sought under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 together with €2,106.02 in respect of annual leave entitlements under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

Preliminary Issue:

The Workplace Relations Act, 2015 (“the 2015 Act”), Section 41 provides at subsection:

 (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…

 (8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

Before considering the substantive complaints, I must address the issue of jurisdiction and time limits. The Complainant's employment ended on 26 March 2025, and the complaints were not referred to the Workplace Relations Commission until 1 December 2025.

The Complainant's representative submitted that following the termination of his employment the Complainant found himself in an exceptionally vulnerable position. I heard evidence that his accommodation had been tied to his employment and that he was required to vacate that accommodation immediately upon termination. I also heard evidence that he had limited English language skills, was unfamiliar with Irish employment rights legislation and procedures and was experiencing uncertainty concerning his immigration and employment permit status. I further heard evidence that he initially sought to recover monies directly from the Respondent before eventually obtaining assistance from the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland.

I am satisfied that these circumstances constitute reasonable cause for the delay in presenting the complaints. The evidence establishes that the Complainant was in a position of significant vulnerability following the termination of his employment. I therefore extend time and proceed to determine the complaints on their merits.

Substantive Complaint – Minimum Wage:

Turning to the substantive complaints, I note that the Respondent did not attend the hearing, did not furnish submissions and produced no employment records. The evidence advanced by the Complainant was therefore entirely uncontested.

Section 14 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000, as amended, (“the 2000 Act”) at section 14 states:

Entitlement to minimum hourly rate of pay

Subject to sections 15, 17, 18 and 41, an employee shall be remunerated by his or her employer in respect of the employee's working hours in any pay reference period, at an hourly rate of pay that on average is not less than the national minimum hourly rate of pay.

Section 26 of the 2000 Act deals with complaints submitted for adjudication where it states, in its relevant parts:

(1) A decision of an adjudication officer in relation to a dispute in respect of the entitlements of an employee under this Act referred to the adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 may contain—

(a) a direction to the employer to pay to the employee—

(i) an award of arrears, being the difference between any amount paid or allowed by the employer to the employee for pay and the minimum amount the employee was entitled to be paid or allowed in accordance with this Act in respect of the period to which the dispute relates, and

(ii) reasonable expenses of the employee in connection with the dispute,

or

(b) a requirement that the employer rectify, within the specified time (not being later than 42 days after the date the decision is communicated to the employer) or in a specified manner, any matter, including the payment of any amount, in respect of which the employer is in contravention of this Act, or

(c) both such direction and such requirement, as the adjudication officer considers appropriate…

The central issue in this National Minimum Wage complaint concerns the hours worked by the Complainant and the remuneration received. I found the evidence concerning the system of reporting attendance through WeChat to be credible and persuasive. The photographic records relied upon were contemporaneous in nature, recorded commencement and finishing times and were maintained at the direction of the Respondent. In circumstances where an employee presents detailed records of hours worked and the employer, who is under a statutory obligation to maintain records, produces none, it is appropriate to attach significant evidential weight to those records.

I therefore accept the Complainant's calculation that he worked an average of 56.76 hours per week during the relevant period. I further accept the evidence concerning the remuneration received and the calculations contained within the written submissions. Applying the statutory minimum hourly rates applicable during 2024 and 2025, I am satisfied that the Complainant was remunerated at a rate below that prescribed by the 2000 Act. Furthermore, the Complainant sought a statement of an average rate of pay for a given period under section 23 and section 24 of the 2000 Act. However, such a request went unacknowledged.

The Complainant also sought arrears for the entirety of the period to which the dispute relates. I have considered the authorities relied upon in support of that proposition, including the Labour Court decisions of  Sue Ryder Foundation Ireland Ltd v Maureen Meenagh  and  Imtiaz Ahmed Ranjha Sky Solicitors v Imtiaz Khan .I am satisfied that where the evidence establishes a continuing underpayment throughout the employment and the complaint is properly before the WRC, section 26 of the 2000 Act permits redress in respect of the entire period to which the dispute relates. Having accepted the calculations advanced by the Complainant, I find that arrears of remuneration in the sum of €12,151 are due and owing.

Annual Leave:

Section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”) deals with entitlement to annual leave:

(1) Subject to the First Schedule (which contains transitional provisions in respect of the leave years 1996 to 1998), an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this Act referred to as “annual leave”) equal to—

(a) 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment),

(b) one-third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours, or

(c) 8 per cent of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks):

Provided that if more than one of the preceding paragraphs is applicable in the case concerned and the period of annual leave of the employee, determined in accordance with each of those paragraphs, is not identical, the annual leave to which the employee shall be entitled shall be equal to whichever of those periods is the greater.

(1A) For the purposes of this section, a day that an employee was absent from work due to illness shall, if the employee provided to his or her employer a certificate of a registered medical practitioner in respect of that illness, be deemed to be a day on which the employee was—

(a)     at his or her place of work or at his or her employer's disposal, and

(b)     carrying on or performing the activities or duties of his or her work.]

(2)  A day which would be regarded as a day of annual leave shall, if the employee concerned is ill on that day and furnishes to his or her employer a certificate of a registered medical practitioner in respect of his or her illness, not be regarded, for the purposes of this Act, as a day of annual leave.

(3)  The annual leave of an employee who works 8 or more months in a leave year shall, subject to the provisions of any employment regulation order, registered employment agreement, collective agreement or any agreement between the employee and his or her employer, include an unbroken period of 2 weeks.

(4)  Notwithstanding subsection (2) or any other provision of this Act but without prejudice to the employee's entitlements under subsection (1), the reference in subsection (3) to an unbroken period of 2 weeks includes a reference to such a period that includes one or more public holidays or days on which the employee concerned is ill.

(5) An employee shall, for the purposes of subsection (1), be regarded as having worked on a day of annual leave the hours he or she would have worked on that day had it not been a day of annual leave.

(6)  References in this section to a working week shall be construed as references to the number of days that the employee concerned usually works in a week.

Section 27 of the 1997 Act deals with adjudication at the Workplace Relations Commission:

A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of a relevant provision shall do one or more of the following, namely—

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision,

(c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances but not exceeding 2 years remuneration in respect of the employee's employment.

In relation to the 1997 Act complaint, the evidence before me was that no annual leave was taken and no payment in respect of annual leave entitlement was made. The Respondent produced no records to demonstrate otherwise. The 1997 Act imposes obligations upon employers both to provide annual leave and to maintain records demonstrating compliance. The Respondent has failed to discharge either obligation, nor did it turn up at the hearing.

Having accepted the hours worked by the Complainant, I also accept the calculations of annual leave entitlement set out in the written submissions. These calculations apply the statutory formula contained in section 19 of the 1997 Act to the hours worked and produce a total entitlement of €2,106 I am satisfied that this figure accurately reflects the annual leave entitlement accrued but not paid during the employment.

Accordingly, I find the complaints under both the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 and the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 to be well founded.

CA-00078158-001 – National Minimum Wage Act 2000

I find this complaint to be well founded.

In accordance with section 26 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000, I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant arrears of remuneration in the sum of €12,151.

CA-00078158-002 – Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

I find the complaint to be well founded.

In accordance with section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €2,106. in respect of accrued but unpaid annual leave entitlement.

The total amount awarded is therefore €14,257.

National Minimum Wage Act 2000. Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. Annual Leave.