Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Soyeon  Kim

Bibi's Restaurant

Representatives

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-00073081-001

03/07/2025

The Complainant commenced her employment on 5 May 2025. She stated that she indicated to the Respondent on 4 June 2025 that was giving them 1 weeks’ notice and that she would be leaving their employment. She further stated that it was agreed that she could leave her employment on 7 June 2025 and that she would be paid in lieu for the rest of her notice period. Despite this agreement, she was not paid a full weeks’ pay, namely €476 and was only paid €300.

The Complainant commenced her employment on 5 May 2025. She stated that she indicated to the Respondent on 4 June 2025 that was giving them 1 weeks’ notice and that she would be leaving their employment. She further stated that it was agreed that she could leave the employment on 7 June 2025 and that she would be paid in lieu for the rest of her notice period. Despite this agreement, she was not paid a full weeks’ pay, namely €476 and was only paid €300.

When asked by the Adjudication Officer if the Respondent made a further payment of €300 to her in the week beginning 8 December 2025, the Complainant accepted that she had in fact received this payment.

In an email to the WRC in the morning of 12 December 2025, the Respondent indicated that they would be unable to attend the hearing but did not object to the matter proceeding. They also indicated that they had made a payment of €300 to the Complainant in the week beginning 8 December 2025 as a goodwill gesture.

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

“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,”

In Marek Balans -v- Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 approving Dunnes Stores (Cornels court) Limited -v- Lacey [2007] 1 1.R. 478, it was stated that a decision-maker must firstly determine what wages are properly payable under the employment contract before determining whether there has been a deduction under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.  While each case will turn on its own particular facts, it is necessary to ascertain, in the instant case, (1) whether the pay constituted a term of the Complainant’s contract and (2) if has there been a contravention of Section 5 of the Act.

The Complainant stated that she indicated to the Respondent on 4 June 2025 that was giving them 1 weeks’ notice and that she would be leaving their employment. She further stated that it was agreed that she could leave the employment on 7 June 2025 and that she would be paid in lieu for the rest of her notice period. Despite this agreement, she was not paid a full weeks’ pay, namely €476. She also stated that the amount of money received into her account, €300, in June 2025 did not reflect what was shown on her payslip. As a result, there was a shortfall in her wages of €176. As the Complainant accepted that she received a further €300 from the Respondent on 8 December 2025 however, I find that this more than covers the outstanding €176 that she stated she was owed in June 2025. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above.