Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Aoife  Kahl

Specsavers

Representatives

Self-represented 

Did not attend

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-00071845-001

23/05/2025

The Complainant referred her claim to the Director General of the WRC on 23 May 2025.

A hearing for the purpose of investigation of the Complainant’s claim was scheduled for 17 December 2025.

Correspondence informing the parties of the arrangements for the hearing issued on 23 October 2025.

There was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Respondent at the hearing. There has been no communication from the Respondent indicating any difficulties with attending the hearing or requesting a postponement.

The Complainant attended the hearing.

The Complainant submitted that, despite multiple attempts to resolve this directly, she has not received the payment for her notice period, which she was entitled to.

The Complainant submitted that her last working day was 7 March 2025. On that day she received an email from the Respondent’s Manager stating :

“Please note that you will be paid your normal salary and any outstanding holiday pay, up to and including the effective date of dismissal. You will also receive a payment in lieu of your notice period, which you will not be required to work given the circumstances”.

On 26 March 2025, the Complainant received her salary for the time she worked during the first week of March.

First Follow-up:

On 27 March 2025, the Complainant contacted the Respondent requesting the payment of her 1 month notice period. This email was sent to the Director, Sean Power and Manager, Sam McNamara. The Complainant did not receive any reply back to this email.

Second Follow-up:

On 31 March 2025, the Complainant sent an email looking for any updates, but she did not receive any reply back.

Third Follow-up:

On 12 April 2025, the Complainant sent an email again looking for any update. On the same day, Mr Power replied back and mentioned that the payment will be completed in that month’s (April) pay. However, this did not happen.

Fourth Follow-up:

On 30 April 2025, the Complainant sent an email again looking for updates as she did not receive the payment in April that was promised in the previous email. She did not receive any reply to this email.

Fifth Follow-up:

On 3 May 2025, the Complainant sent an email again looking for updates. Mr Power replied back the same day stating,

“Apologies for delay can you send me your bank details, and I will arrange an urgent payment”.

The Complainant replied back with her bank details.

Sixth Follow-up:

On 7 May 2025, the Complainant sent an email again looking for updates, but she did not receive any reply back.

Seventh Follow-up:

On 12 May 2025, the Complainant sent an email again looking for updates and also mentioned “Please be advised that if the payment is not received by tomorrow, I will have no choice but to report the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission for further investigation. I hope this can be resolved without needing to escalate the issue.”

The Complainant submits that Mr Power replied back the same day and confirmed that the payment would be processed by the end of the week. Mr Power also stated in this email:

“You mention an intention to escalate this to the Workplace Relations Commission unless payment is received ‘by tomorrow’. I must admit I’m a little puzzled. On what possible grounds would you propose proceeding? There is no unpaid wages dispute, no denial of payment, and no refusal to engage. Quite the opposite, this has been acknowledged and actioned in full view, with full intention to resolve it.

To frame it as something requiring WRC intervention is, frankly, quite far removed from the purpose of that body, The WRC exists to resolve genuine disputes of employment law, not minor delays where the employer has been in ongoing and open communication and has repeatedly confirmed payment will be received.

If your approach is to manufacture conflict where none exists, I would respectfully suggest a more constructive use of energy would be to simply await the payment, which, again, is arriving this week”.

The Complainant replied back the same day stating, “I’m willing to wait until the end of this week for the payment to completed as stated”.

On 19 May 2025, Mr Power emailed stating “I confirmed monies owed have been sent to your account. It will arrive within 2 working days”.

The Complainant submits that she waited 3 working days before following up again.

Eighth Follow-up:

On 22 May 2025, the Complainant sent an email again looking for an update on the outstanding payment.

The Complainant submits that, at the time of the referral of this complaint, the above email was her last communication with Mr Power and Mr McNamara in relation to the outstanding payment.

The Complainant submits that she has been actively following up since 27 March 2025. The Respondent acknowledged the issue but failed to act within the timelines they provided. There were repeated delays, broken commitments, and no clear resolution. The Complainant believes that this is a clear breach of her employment rights.

The Complainant provided a copy of an email from the Respondent with the terms and conditions of her employment. The email confirmed that the required notice, following a probationary period of six months, would be one month.

There was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Respondent.

The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent on 20 May 2024. Her employment terminated on 7 March 2025. The Complainant asserted that she did not receive the appropriate payment in lieu of notice.

This matter was referred to the Director General of the WRC pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The Relevant Law

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 provides the following definition of wages:

"wages", in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—

(a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and (b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice…

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 provides as follows:

Regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers.

5.—(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.

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 address the circumstances in which wages which are properly payable are not paid:

(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 MacGrath J considered Section 5 of the Act as follows:

36. The provisions of s. 5(6) of the Act of 1991 were considered by Finnegan P. in Dunnes Stores (Cornelscourt) Limited v. Lacey [2007] 1 I.R. 478. A Rights Commissioner had found in favour of the respondents holding that the cessation of service pay amounted to an unlawful deduction, which was upheld by the EAT. It was argued that the EAT should address the question of remuneration properly payable to an employee before considering the question of a deduction or whether a deduction was unlawful. Finnegan P. concluded at p. 482:-

“I am satisfied upon careful perusal of the documents relied upon by the respondents that the same cannot represent the agreement or an acknowledgement of the agreement contended for but rather contain a clear denial of the existence of any such agreement. No other evidence of an agreement was proffered. In these circumstances I am satisfied that the Employment Appeals Tribunal erred in law in failing to address the question of the remuneration properly payable to the respondents, such a determination being essential to the making by it of a determination. Insofar as a finding is implicit in the determination of the Employment Appeals Tribunal that the appellant agreed to pay to the respondents service pay and a long service increment, then such finding was made without evidence and indeed in the face of the evidence: I am satisfied that there has been no deduction of pay from the respondents within the terms of the Act of 1991 but rather their remuneration has been unilaterally increased by the appellant making a payment which recognises their long service in excess of that which was payable prior to the 18th September, 2002. In either case there has been an error or law. Accordingly I allow the appeal.”

The High Court clarified that, when dealing with a complaint under the Act, an Adjudication Officer must begin by determining whether the wages in question were properly due to the employee. Only after establishing this should the Adjudication Officer consider whether a deduction was made. If a deduction within the meaning of the Act is identified, the next step is to consider whether that deduction was lawful.

It is for the Complainant to demonstrate that the wages payable to her during the period encompassed by the claim are properly payable to her under the Act.

The Labour Court in Hannigans Butchers Limited v Jerko Anders Hresik Bernak DWT 194 held as follows;-

This Court in Melbury Developments Ltd v. Arturs Valpeters EDA0917, in a case under the Employment Equality Acts, put it clearly in stating, ‘Mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn’ and that ‘The Complainant must first establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred’. While these observations of the Court reference specific requirements under the relevant legislation, the sentiments are equally applicable to the exercise of rights under other Acts covering employment law. Indeed, it is a well-established general rule of evidence to quote Palles CB in Mahony v. Waterford, Limerick and Western Railway Co., (1900)2 IR 273, that ‘…it is a general rule of law that it lies upon the plaintiff to prove affirmatively all the facts entitling him to relief…’

The non-payment of wages that are properly payable to an employee is an unlawful deduction by the employer. The definition also makes it clear that payments in lieu of notice i.e. such moneys which the employee would have earned as wages had she worked out her notice are “wages”. The question to be decided is whether the wages claimed were properly payable.

The Complainant furnished an email dated 18 May 2024 from Mr McNamara, Store Manager with an offer of employment. The email outlined the main terms and conditions of the Complainant’s employment.

The Complainant’s salary was stated to be €26,416 at the commenced of her employment.

While the email stipulated that the Complainant’s salary would be reviewed every 12 months, the Complainant gave evidence that her salary increased in December 2024. The Complainant exhibited a copy of a payslips dated 28 February 2025 showing that her basic salary was €2,373.92 gross per month.

The terms and conditions of employment as outlined in the email stipulate further that:

“Notice period - during the probationary period, two weeks' notice by you or the employer; after the probationary period, one month’s notice by you or the employer.

 This job offer is made subject to satisfactory pre-employment checks.

Please note that there will also be a probationary period of 6 months.”

I note that the Complainant’s probationary period of 6 months would have ended in or around 20 November 2024. At that juncture, the Complainant would gain an entitlement to one month’s notice.

I further note that in her correspondence of 27 March 2025, the Complainant stated clearly that “I haven’t yet received the payment for the 1 month notice period”. At no stage in its correspondence did the Respondent question or deny the Complainant’s entitlement to one month notice. In fact, in the email correspondence, Mr Power, Director repeatedly said that the monies would be paid to the Complainant.

It is somewhat curious that the Respondent considered the Complainant’s attempt to resolve the matter amicably over the two months post-her dismissal as “manufactured conflict” and the non-payment as one that somewhat falls outside the scope of the WRC remit. In any event, even at that stage, the Respondent did not question the Complainant’s entitlement to one month’s notice.

On the basis of uncontested testimony and documentary evidence furnished by the Complainant, I find that the Complainant was entitled to one month’s notice on the termination of her employment.

I declare this complaint to be well founded. I direct the Respondent to a pay the Complainant €2,373.92 gross in respect of the payment in lieu of notice.

Notice-