Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jemma  Burke

 Debmarv Services Ltd T/A Unique Communications

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

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-00073008-001

01/07/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 7 November 2023 and was informed on 29 November 2024 that her employment was being terminated with immediate effect due to a reduction in workflow. She stated that she remains owed outstanding wages in the amount of €1,291.19.

The Complainant was informed on 29 November 2024 that her employment was being terminated with immediate effect due to a reduction in workflow. This was confirmed in writing by the Respondent in a termination letter issued on that date. She was advised that she would receive her full monthly salary as normal by bank transfer at month end.

While a portion of her wages was paid, the Complainant asserted that a balance of €1,291.19 remains outstanding and has not been received to date. This amount reflects unpaid wages for her final period of employment. She stated that she contacted the Respondent on several occasions seeking payment of the outstanding sum but no further wages were paid.

Although I am satisfied that the Respondent was aware of the time and the date of the hearing, they did not attend on the day to give evidence.

This complaint was referred to the WRC on 1 July 2025 and concerns unpaid wages that the Complainant states were owed to her following the termination of her employment on 29 November 2024.

Preliminary Matter – Time Limits:

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides as follows in respect of time limits:

“Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates."

Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that if a complaint is not submitted within six months of the alleged contravention, an extension may be granted by an Adjudication Officer up to a maximum time limit of twelve months where, in the opinion of the Adjudication Officer, a Complainant has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay:

“An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than six months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.”

It is a matter for a Complainant to establish that there is reasonable cause for the delay.

The Complainant in this case stated that she had been repeatedly promised by the Respondent that they would pay her the shortfall in wages that were owed to her and that this was the reason she had delayed in referring the complaint to the WRC. The Complainant, in her evidence, stated that she was owed a net amount of €3,541.19 when her employment was terminated in November 2024. She stated that subsequent to this she received a further €2,250 from the Respondent in a number of different payments at various times between December 2024 and 31 March 2025. She stated that the Respondent informed her on 2 April 2025 that he would transfer the remainder of the amount outstanding, namely €1,291.19, over the next couple of months. She subsequently contacted them again seeking the outstanding balance, and they informed her on 13 May 2025 that they would have to push the payment date back a couple of weeks. The Complainant subsequently wrote to them again on 9 June 2025 seeking the payment, and they wrote back to her several days later stating that the money wasn’t there at the moment.

Considering this undisputed evidence, I find that it was reasonable for the Complainant not to have presented the complaint within the six‑month period following the final alleged contravention of the Act on 29 November 2024 and accordingly decide that I have jurisdiction to consider any alleged contraventions of the Act in the period from 2 July 2024 to 1 July 2025. The complaint was submitted within twelve months of the alleged contravention and therefore falls within the extended statutory period permitted under Section 41(8).

Substantive Matter:

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 (Cornelscourt) Limited v Lacey [2007] 1 I.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) whether there has been a contravention of Section 5 of the Act.

As it was not disputed that the Complainant did not receive wages in the amount of €1,291.19 that she stated were due to be paid to her following the termination of her employment on 29 November 2024, this non‑payment constitutes an unlawful deduction under Section 5 of the Act, and I find that this complaint is well founded.

I find that this complaint is well founded for the reasons set out above and direct that the Respondent makes a payment to the Complainant of €1,291.19 net.