Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Oleksandr  Khimich

PSW Landscaping Limited t/a PSW Services

Representatives

Self-Represented

No Attendance

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00074248-001

11/08/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00074248-002

11/08/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent, PSW Landscaping Ltd trading as PSW Services, on 9 July 2023 as a landscape worker. His employment was terminated by text on 8 August 2025. He earned approximately €870.72; net €720 per week and worked a 40-hour week.

The Complainant submitted complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015(“the 1977 Act”) and the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the 1991 Act”).

The Respondent did not attend the hearing, despite being notified at the address supplied by the Complainant, and the matter proceeded in their absence. The Complainant gave evidence on oath with the assistance of an interpreter.

The Complainant is of Ukrainian heritage and is eligible to work in the Republic of Ireland under the Temporary Protection for Ukrainians Directive.

CA-00074248-001 Unfair Dismissal.

The Complainant stated that he commenced employment on 9 July 2023 as a landscape worker, earning approximately €720 per week. He said that his employment ended on 8 August 2025, via text message by the principal of the Respondent company who stated that his employment was terminated with immediate effect. He maintained that this occurred without any procedure, stating that it was: “without any written notice, without a formal meeting or consultation.”

The Complainant said that the reason given for his dismissal was a lack of work. However, he disputed this, stating that other employees remained working. His evidence was that “there are three people working” and that although he and another worker were told there was no work, “the third person was kept.” He said that there had been no issues with his performance and that he had a good work record, with no complaints raised during his employment.

Mitigation of Loss.

The Complainant gave evidence that he attempted to secure alternative work, stating that “he went to some building site” and worked for a couple of days there, and that he tried other employment, but it did not continue. He explained that work was difficult to obtain because “it’s more or less seasonal work” and “because of the very bad weather this year, there was no other works available.” He said he had been a teacher of Russian in his native Ukraine, with university qualifications, but that no such opportunities have arisen in that line of work in Ireland. He also gave evidence that his accommodation is in Skibbereen, West Cork where work opportunities have been rare during the winter. 

CA-00074248-002 Payment of Wages.

In relation to his wages, the Complainant stated that he had been underpaid. He said his final payment amounted to €520 and he doesn’t know why because it wasn’t explained. The shortfall was identified as €200 net. He also confirmed that he did not receive notice pay which he claims should have been two weeks wages.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

CA-00074248-001 Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015 (“the 1977 Act”)

The matter for me to determine whether the Complainant was dismissed and if that dismissal was  an unfair dismissal  within the meaning of the 1977 Act. It is not in dispute that the Complainant’s employment terminated on 8 August 2025. The Respondent did not attend the hearing and did not provide any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s account. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant was dismissed.

 Under s.6 of the 1977 Act, the dismissal is presumed unfair unless the Respondent shows it resulted wholly or mainly from a permissible ground and that fair procedures were observed. The reasonableness or otherwise of an employer in carrying out a dismissal is addressed under Section6(7) of the Act which provides:

"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so -

(a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and (b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in section 14(1) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice referred to in paragraph (d) (inserted by the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993) of section 7(2) of this Act."

The Complainant’s uncontested evidence was that he was dismissed by text message and without any prior warning, consultation, or disciplinary process. There was no evidence of any procedure having been followed, nor any engagement with the Complainant prior to the termination of his employment. I find that the dismissal was affected in a wholly procedurally and in a totally unacceptable unfair manner.

The reason given to the Complainant, by text, for his dismissal was that there was no work available. However, the Complainant gave credible and consistent evidence that other employees remained in employment, including at least one individual performing similar work. In the absence of any evidence from the Respondent, I find that the purported reason of lack of work has not been substantiated. Even if it were accepted that there was a downturn in work, no reasonable employer would dismiss an employee by text.

In accordance with section 6(7) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, I have considered both the substantive justification for the dismissal and the procedures adopted by the employer. I find that the Respondent has failed on both counts. There was no fair reason established for the dismissal and there was a complete absence of fair procedures. Accordingly, I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

Redress:

Section 7 of the Act, in its relevant parts, provides:

7. Redress for unfair dismissal:  

(1) Where an employee is dismissed and the dismissal is an unfair dismissal, the employee shall be entitled to redress consisting of whichever of the following the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers appropriate having regard to all the circumstances:

…. (c) (i) if the employee incurred any financial loss attributable to the dismissal, payment to him by the employer of such compensation in respect of the loss (not exceeding in amount 104 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of this Act) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(ii) if the employee incurred no such financial loss, payment to the employee by the employer of such compensation (if any, but not exceeding in amount 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated as aforesaid as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances,

and the reference in the foregoing paragraphs to an employer shall be construed, in a case where the ownership of the business of the employer changes after the dismissal, as references to the person who, by virtue of the change, becomes entitled to such ownership.

(2A) In calculating financial loss for the purposes of subsection (1), payments to the employee— under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 in respect of any period following the dismissal concerned, or

(b) under the Income Tax Acts arising by reason of the dismissal, shall be disregarded.

…. (3) In this section—

“financial loss”, in relation to the dismissal of an employee, includes any actual loss and any actual loss and any estimated prospective loss of income attributable to the dismissal and the value of any loss or diminution, attributable to the dismissal, of the rights of the employee under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to [2014], or in relation to superannuation.

“remuneration” includes allowances pay and benefits in lieu of or in addition to pay.

The Complainant seeks compensation. I must consider the financial loss suffered and the extent to which the Complainant mitigated that loss. The Complainant gave evidence that he made some efforts to obtain alternative employment, including undertaking short periods of work. The Complainant also gave evidence of a lack of opportunity in his profession as Russian teacher in Skibbereen or the greater West Cork area. . However, I find that these efforts were somewhat limited and not supported by documentary evidence. While I accept that there were constraints arising from the seasonal nature of the work and local labour market conditions, I am not satisfied that the Complainant made sufficiently robust efforts to mitigate his loss.

Having regard to all of the circumstances, including the Complainant’s weekly net earnings of €720, I consider that an award equivalent to six months’ net wages is just and equitable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. This reflects the seriousness of the unfair dismissal while also considering the Complainant’s limited mitigation.

I therefore award the Complainant compensation in the amount of six months’ net wages, being the net sum of €18,720.

CA-00074248-002 Payment of Wages Act 1991. (“the 1991 Act”)

The second matter concerns a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 where the Complainant claimed in in uncontested evidence that he was thee was a net shortfall in his final salary of €200 and that he was also not paid his minimum notice pay of two weeks salary which is based on his entitlement to two weeks’ pay because he has more than 2 years’ service.

Section 1 of the 1991 Act defines “wages “as: 

“… in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including— 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 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: Provided however that the following payments shall not be regarded as wages for the purposes of this definition: any payment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment, any payment by way of a pension, allowance or gratuity in connection with the death, or the retirement or resignation from his employment, of the employee or as compensation for loss of office, any payment referable to the employee's redundancy, any payment to the employee otherwise than in his capacity as an employee, any payment in kind or benefit in kind[,any payment by way of tips and gratuities.

Section 5 of the Act in its applicable parts provides:

(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.

(2) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of—

(a) any act or omission of the employee, or

(b) any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment,

unless—

(i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee, and

(ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee), and

(iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with—

(I) in case the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing, a copy thereof,

(II) in any other case, notice in writing of the existence and effect of the term, and

(iv) in case the deduction is in respect of an act or omission of the employee, the employee has been furnished, at least one week before the making of the deduction, with particulars in writing of the act or omission and the amount of the deduction, and

(v) in case the deduction is in respect of compensation for loss or damage sustained by the employer as a result of an act or omission of the employee, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the amount of the loss or the cost of the damage, and

(vi) in case the deduction is in respect of goods or services supplied or provided as aforesaid, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the cost to the employer of the goods or services, and

(vii) the deduction or, if the total amount payable to the employer by the employee in respect of the act or omission or the goods or services is to be so paid by means of more than one deduction from the wages of the employee, the first such deduction is made not later than 6 months after the act or omission becomes known to the employer or, as the case may be, after the provision of the goods or services.

(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 previously mentioned) are paid to the employee,

then, except as 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.

The Complainant’s evidence, which was not contradicted, was that he was underpaid in respect of his final wages by €200. He stated that he received a payment of €520 and that no explanation was provided for the shortfall. I accept this evidence. There was no evidence from the Respondent to justify any deduction or to demonstrate that the correct amount had been paid.

In accordance with section 5 of the 1991 Act, an employer shall not make any deduction from the wages of an employee unless it is authorised by statute, contract, or with the prior consent of the employee. No such justification has been advanced in this case. I therefore find that the deduction of €200 was unlawful.

The Complainant also gave evidence that he did not receive any payment in lieu of notice. While there was no separate complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, I am satisfied that the failure to pay notice pay constitutes a sum properly payable to the Complainant and falls to be considered within the scope the definition of wages under section 1 of the 1991 Act as wages properly due.

The Complainant had in excess of two years’ service and was therefore entitled to a minimum of two weeks’ notice. On the basis of his weekly net pay of €720, this amounts to €1,440.

Accordingly, I find that the Complainant is entitled to a €200 net sum in respect of unlawful deduction of wages and €1,440 in respect of unpaid notice, giving a total net sum of €1,640.

CA-00061527-001: For the reasons outlined above, I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the net sum of €18,720 which I regard as just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA-00061527-002: For the reasons outlined above, I find that the complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 was well founded, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the net total sum of €1640.

Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, Payment of Wages Act 1991.