Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Padraig  Cotter

Trabolgan Holiday Centre Ltd.

Representatives

Self-Represented

Cara Jane Walsh BL instructed by Leah Moriarty RDJ LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00081114-001

24/02/2026

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in or around May 2022 as a security officer. His role primarily involved weekend night shifts. The Respondent operated a holiday centre which, during the relevant period, also functioned as accommodation under State contracts. The Complainant’s employment continued until the expiry of a fixed-term contract on or about 1 November 2025.

In the course of his employment, the Complainant contended that he was not properly remunerated in respect of certain public holidays and that he did not receive the correct statutory entitlements in respect of those days. He submitted that this amounted to an unlawful deduction from his wages within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Respondent accepted that there had been a shortfall in payments referable to public holiday entitlements and did not dispute that a sum was due to the Complainant in that regard.

However, the Respondent submitted that any such liability was subject to the statutory limitation period applicable to complaints under the 1991 Act. It was contended that, pursuant to section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, the cognisable period was confined to the six months immediately preceding the date of the complaint, in the absence of any established basis for an extension of time. While conceding that monies were owed, the Respondent maintained that any award must be limited to the underpayments arising within that six-month period prior to the lodging of the complaint.

The Complainant accepted the legal position that a non-payment of wages claim can only be retrospective to six months prior to the date of submission. The Complainant did not submit an application for a further six-month extension of that period based on reasonable cause.

The Respondent accepted that there had been a shortfall in the Complainant’s public holiday entitlements and conceded that a sum was due in respect of unpaid wages arising from those entitlements. It submitted that the underpayment arose from an error in the application of public holiday calculations rather than any deliberate withholding of wages. The Respondent outlined that the method of calculation used to arrive at the outstanding sum had been exhibited at the hearing and formed part of its evidence.

The Respondent stated that the gross amount of the underpayment was €157.50, subject to the application of normal statutory deductions. It did not dispute liability for that sum.

The Respondent’s primary legal submission was that any award must be confined to the cognisable period prescribed by section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. It was contended that the complaint had been presented outside the standard six-month limitation period and that, in the absence of any evidence of reasonable cause to extend time, recovery could only be made in respect of underpayments occurring within the six months immediately preceding the date of submission. Accordingly, while conceding the existence of an underpayment, the Respondent maintained that liability was limited to the relevant statutory period.

The complaint before me is brought pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Section 5 of the Act provides that an employer shall not make any deduction from the wages of an employee unless such deduction is authorised by statute or by the contract of employment. A failure to pay an employee their statutory public holiday entitlement constitutes a deduction within the meaning of the Act.

The Respondent accepted, both in its written submission and in evidence at the hearing, that there had been an underpayment to the Complainant in respect of public holiday entitlements. It provided a detailed calculation of the amounts due, which was exhibited at the hearing. The total sum identified by the Respondent as outstanding was €157.50 gross, subject to statutory deductions. This calculation and the basis upon which it was made were not disputed by the Complainant.

The principal issue for determination is the extent to which that underpayment is cognisable having regard to the statutory time limits. Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that a complaint must be presented within six months of the date of the contravention, with a discretion to extend that period to a maximum of twelve months where reasonable cause is shown. The Complainant advanced no evidence to support an extension of time in this case.

The complaint was presented to the Workplace Relations Commission on 24 February 2026. The cognisable period therefore extends to the 26 weeks immediately preceding that date, namely from 26 August 2025. The Complainant’s contract terminated on 1 November 2025. Any alleged underpayments arising prior to that date fall outside the jurisdiction conferred on me by statute.

In circumstances where the Respondent has conceded that an underpayment arose, and where the calculation of the amount due has not been contested, I am satisfied that a complaint under the 1991 Act  is well founded. However, I am equally satisfied that any redress must be confined to the contraventions occurring within the relevant statutory period.

CA-00081114-001: I find that a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is well founded, and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €157.50 gross, subject to any statutory deductions, such sum representing the underpayment of public holiday entitlements within the cognisable period.

Payment of Wages Act 1991. Public Holidays.