Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Shane  Hanbury

Heather Foods And Catering Ltd

Representatives

None

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-00078068-001

26/11/2025

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

CA-00078068-002

26/11/2025

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

CA-00078068-003

26/11/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00078068-004

26/11/2025

The Complainant contends he is owed wages, holiday pay and notice.  The Complainant commenced employment on 4 July 2022.  His position became redundant on 12 October 2025.

The Complainant contends he is owed two weeks wages totalling 80 hours.  He also submits he is owed one weeks holiday pay and two weeks’ notice.  The Complainant was earning €620 gross/€534.37 net at the time his position became redundant.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing.  No contact was received by or on behalf of the Respondent prior to or after the hearing to indicate any difficulty with attending the hearing.

Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

Relevant Law

Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (as amended) (“the 1991 Act”)

Section 1(1) of the 1991 Act defines “wages” as:

". . . any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment . . .  . ”

Section 5 of the 1991 Act provides:

“(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 . . .

(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”.

In Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55, the High Court outlined that when considering a complaint under the 1991 Act, it must first be established the wages which were properly payable before considering whether a deduction had been made. 

Findings

CA-00078068-001

The uncontested evidence of the Complainant is that he was not paid for the last two weeks worked by him.   Section 5(6)(b) of the 1991 Act provides that, where none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion 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.  Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I am satisfied that wages were properly payable to the Complainant each week in the last two weeks of the Complainant’s employment.  I am satisfied that the failure to pay the wages due in both weeks was not due to a computational error and did not arise for one of the reasons set out in section 5(1) of the 1991 Act.  Therefore, I find that the Respondent’s failure to pay wages in each week of the final two weeks of the Complainant’s employment constitutes unlawful deductions within the meaning of the 1991 Act.  Accordingly, I find the Complainant’s complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €1,068.74 (being 2 weeks net wages).

CA-00078068-002

This is a duplicate complaint.  I have made a finding in relation to the non-payment of two weeks wages under CA-00078068-001.  Accordingly, I find this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00078068-003 – complaint under Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

Relevant Law

Section 2(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 (“the 1997 Act”) defines the ‘leave year’ as meaning “. . . a year beginning on any 1st day of April”.

Section 20(1) of the 1997 Act provides:

“The times at which annual leave is granted to an employee shall be determined by his or her employer having regard to work requirements and subject . . . (c) to the leave being granted— (i) within the leave year to which it relates . . . .”

Section 23 of the 1997 Act provides for compensation on cesser of employment.

“(1) (a) Where— (i) an employee ceases to be employed, and (ii) the whole or any portion of the annual leave in respect of the relevant period remains to be granted to the employee, the employee shall, as compensation for the loss of that annual leave, be paid by his or her employer an amount equal to the pay, calculated at the normal weekly rate or, as the case may be, at a rate proportionate to the normal weekly rate, that he or she would have received had he or she been granted that annual leave.

(b) In this subsection— "relevant period" means—

(i) in relation to a cessation of employment of an employee to whom subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 20 applies, the current leave year,

(ii) in relation to a cessation of employment of an employee to whom subparagraph (ii) of the said paragraph (c) applies, that occurs during the first 6 months of the current leave year—

(I) the current leave year, and

(II) the leave year immediately preceding the current leave year,

(iii) in relation to a cessation of employment of an employee to whom subparagraph (iii) of the said paragraph (c) applies, that occurs during the first 12 months of the period of 15 months referred to in the said subparagraph (iii) —

(I) the current leave year, and

(II) the leave year immediately preceding the current leave year,

or

(iv) in relation to a cessation of employment of an employee to whom subparagraph (iii) of the said paragraph (c) applies that occurs during the final 3 months of the period of 15 months referred to in the said subparagraph (iii) —

(I) the current leave year, and

(II) the 2 leave years immediately preceding the current leave year . . . . ”

Section 27 (3) of the 1997 Act provides:

“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 of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment.”

Findings

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I am satisfied that this complaint concerns annual leave accrued for the period 1 April 2025 until 12 October 2025.  I am satisfied that the Complainant was not compensated for the loss of that annual leave of one week on cessation of his employment.  Therefore, I find this complaint is well-founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €620 (gross).

CA-00078068-004 – complaint under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

Relevant Law

Section 4 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 (“the 1973 Act”) provides:

“(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be— . . . (b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks . . . . ”

Section 12 of the 1973 Act provides:

“(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 4(2) or 5 may, where the adjudication officer finds that that section was contravened by the employer in relation to the employee who presented the complaint, include a direction that the employer concerned pay to the employee compensation for any loss sustained by the employee by reason of the contravention.”

Findings

The uncontested evidence of the Complainant is that he was employed since July 2022 and is entitled to two weeks’ notice.  He outlined that he did not receive notice when his position was made redundant in October 2025.  I am satisfied that in accordance with s. 4(2)(b) of the 1973 Act that the Complainant was entitled to two weeks’ notice of termination of employment.  As the Complainant did not receive the period of notice due to him, I find his complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant €1,068.74 (being two weeks net wages) for the loss sustained by him in not receiving his statutory notice on termination of his employment.

CA-00078068-001

I decide the Complainant’s complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €1,068.74.

CA-00078068-002

This is a duplicate complaint.  I have made a finding under CA-00078068-001.  Accordingly, I decide this complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 is not well founded.

CA-00078068-003

I decide this complaint is well-founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €620.

CA-00078068-004

I decide this complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant €1,068.74 for the loss sustained by him in not receiving his statutory notice on termination of his employment.

Unlawful deduction. Minimum notice. Cesser holiday pay.