ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060367
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mohamed Gomaa | Prestige Car Wash And Valeting Ltd. |
Representatives | Self Represented | Owner |
Complaint(s):
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-00073499-001 | 16/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint( and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The Hearing too place completely in public and the required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties. Full cross examination of Witnesses was allowed.
Background:
The Complainant worked for two days as a Car Wash Valet and lodged a complaint for unpaid wages of 133.11 Euros. The Respondent position was that the Complainant had been paid what he was due and was not owed any wages. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant worked for 2 days as a Car Valet on May 29th and 30th 2025. He submitted a complaint to the WRC that he was not paid 133.11 Euros wages. At the Hearing the Complainant advised he initially had been paid 69 Euros but then stated he had been paid 96.39 Euros and not the amount paid. He then stated he was due 36 Euros but that his main issue was not the money but the way he was treated by the Respondent and wished to set out his grievances regarding how he was treated while he worked for the Respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent advised that the Complainant was due 229 Euros for 17 hours worked and that 96.39 Euros was deducted from his pay for statutory deductions and his net pay was 133.11 Euros. He advised this was left at the Company premises in cash for the Complainant in an envelope and he was asked to come to Reception and collect it. The Respondent advised the Complainant came to Reception four weeks after he worked there and he was paid the net wages due in cash. He advised an Employee could give evidence of this but was not present at the Hearing. The Respondent denied that he owed the Complainant any wages and felt the Complainant was confused about the amount he was paid and the amount legally deducted. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainants evidence was very varied and he appeared confused about how much he had been paid and how much he was claiming. He initially stated he was paid 69 Euros then stated he was paid 96 Euros and then stated he was due 36 Euros. The Respondent denied owing any wages to the Complainant. The Complainant appeared to mix up the amount he was claiming with the amount deducted from his wages for statutory deductions. The Adjudicator tried to establish the amount claimed and the Complainant then informed the Hearing he was more concerned about how he was treated than any money due. The Complainant was informed this was not an issue for adjudication at the Hearing. Having consider the evidence of both Parties and the conflicting evidence of the Complainant,, I find that the Complainant has not set out a reasonable or understandable claim under the Act and the complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find the complaint not well founded. |
Dated: 18-03-2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Key Words:
Payment of Wages |