Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Autana Arias Rojas

Wings Rhythmic Gymnastics Club

Representatives

Represented herself 

Did not attend the hearing

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-00071767-001

21/05/2025

The complainant is a gymnastics coach and a qualified physiotherapist.  She is a Spanish national and, in an online search in late 2023, she came across the respondent’s gymnastics club and saw that they were looking for a coach.  She was interviewed remotely by the head coach, Ms Enya Tierney, who offered her a job commencing on November 14th 2023.  An organisation chart submitted by the complainant in her book of documents for the hearing shows that, as head coach, Ms Tierney was the complainant’s direct manager for the duration of her employment.

In the documents she submitted for the hearing, the complainant included a copy of a statement of her conditions of employment.  This is referred to as a “Day 5 Statement.”  Under the heading, “Duration of Contract,” this document states as follows:

“There will be a provisional full-time contract (sic).  The employee is in the process of homologating her physiotherapy licence.  Therefore, once she knows what her commitments will be for 2024 the contract will be renewed.  This future contract may last for the duration of the season.”

On April 25th 2024, the complainant received a second “Day 5 Statement” which shows that she was employed for one year “from the starting date.”  Under the heading “Remuneration,” both statements show that the complainant was to be paid what is referred to as “an initial basic amount” of €2,200, to be paid monthly on the first day of each month.  The complainant said that, at her interview, she was informed that she would be paid €15.00 per hour.  The statement shows that she was expected to work for 35 hours each week, 23 of which were to be spent coaching, with the remaining hours dedicated to lesson planning, making routines and tracking the performance of participants.

From early 2024, the complainant said that there were delays with the payment of her wages.  She said that the money arrived in her account days after the first day of the month.  She said that she had to send emails to the club secretary and welfare officer, Mr Walsh, to find out when she would be paid.  The complainant included copies of documents from her bank which shows that her wages was transferred by the respondent to her bank account on the following dates:

December 4th 2023:  €1,000

January 8th 2024:  €2,200

February 2nd 2024:  €2,200

March 11th 2024:  €2,200

April 3rd 2024:  €2,216

May 7th 2024:  €733

May 13th 2024:  €1,467 

June 28th 2024:  €3,850

The complainant was not issued with a payslip for the wages she received between November 2024 and April 2025.  The first payslip is dated May 31st 2024 and indicates that her gross pay that month was €2,303.67 and her net pay was €2,200.  Monthly pay of €2,303.67 results in an annual salary of €27,644 and weekly pay of €531.60, which is equivalent to €15.00 per hour for a 35 hour week.  There are no cumulative wages on the May payslip, indicating that May 2024 was the first month that year for which payslips were processed and the first month for which PAYE, PRSI and USC was deducted.  At the hearing, the complainant said that, on June 5th 2024, when they had not received their wages at the beginning of the month, Mr Walsh told the employees that they had to register with the Revenue Commissioners.

An email sent to the complainant by Mr Walsh on July 10th 2024 states as follows:

“…we have paid taxes on your behalf on previous payments, so you will see a little less take-home pay now.” 

The complainant said that she had agreed with the head coach that she would take time off to attend a coaching workshop in the US between July 16th and September 10th 2024.

For the first two weeks of July, the complainant worked on a summer camp.  On August 1st, she received no wages and no holiday pay.  On Sunday, August 11th, when she was in the US, she said that she got a WhatsApp message from Mr Walsh in which he apologised because her wages were late.  She produced a copy of this message in the booklet she prepared for the hearing.  In his message, Mr Walsh said,

“Hi Autana hope all is going well in Boston.  Apologies for not getting in contact sooner, I have not been able to get to my work devices.  We have integrated new payment software …the delay in payouts is something I did not know about and I was delayed a week setting it up as well.  I am at the airport now looking into it and the payments are beginning to come through from tomorrow.  This process is significantly slower than it was …the cash flow is beginning to flow however there may still be a delay getting that out as there is currently very little resting in the account.”

On Friday August 16th, Mr Walsh sent the complainant an email asking to attend a meeting over Zoom the following Monday or Tuesday.  On Monday, August 19th, when he confirmed the meeting for Wednesday August 21st, Mr Walsh wrote that the purpose of the meeting was “to discuss some important updates within your role at the club.”  However, at the meeting, the complainant was dismissed.  The emails she submitted in her documents for the hearing show that, at the meeting, Mr Walsh read out a letter of dismissal which he attached to an email that he sent her that evening.  In the letter, he said that her employment was terminated “due to the requirements of the business and the fact that you are not the right fit for the role.”

In his email of August 21st, Mr Walsh told the complainant that she was entitled to appeal against her dismissal.  He informed her that, if she did not appeal, he would “begin processing your final statement of payment.”  He said that the amount owed to her was €2,361.88.  He said that this comprised the following:

“2 weeks’ pay for duration worked over July

6 days PTO (pro rata basis of 10% based on work completed from 24-04-2024 to 13-07-2024 and nullification of Leave of Absence Agreement which was circumstantial to the fulfilment of agreed upon contract)

5 days’ Paid Notice

€51.88 (agreed upon amount to be remunerated from competition in Southern Spain after tax contributions from July period of pay are subtracted

Total:  €2,361.88 (this will be subject to local taxes and regulations)”

On August 28th, the complainant sent an email to Mr Walsh to inform him of her decision to appeal.  On August 30th, she sent an email to the head coach, Ms Tierney, and asked her to provide a reference.  Ms Tierney replied on September 2nd and said that she couldn’t send a reference until the appeal process was completed.  She said, “We can discuss references once we have an conclusion (sic) on the appeal.”  On September 4th 2024, the complainant submitted this dispute to the WRC. 

The was a delay arranging the appeal hearing when the complainant informed Mr Walsh that her solicitor would attend with her.  Mr Walsh refused the allow her to bring a solicitor and she selected a colleague.  The meeting was further delayed when Mr Walsh wrote to the complainant on October 5th and said, “we have temporarily lost our print facilities.”  The complainant attended an appeal of her dismissal on October 16th 2024; however, the decision to dismiss her remained unchanged.

On October 29th, Ms Tierney wrote to the complainant in response to her request for a reference.  Ms Tierney said that she didn’t feel comfortable providing a recommendation. 

Following the appeal, the complainant asked to be paid her final wages.  On November 5th 2024, she received a long email from Mr Walsh.  In his opening remarks he said,

“Good afternoon Autana

I am processing your last payslip now following the decision on the appeal.”

Mr Walsh went on to inform the complainant that the cost of her uniform would be deducted from her wages because it had been returned damaged.  She provided a photograph of her uniform t-shirt which appeared to be completely fresh and not damaged.  Mr Walsh said that she had not returned a book, a hot water bottle and an electric blanket.  In relation to the expenses associated with her attendance at a competition in Spain, he said, “a bank statement is not a verifiable receipt.”  The complainant had provided bank statements with details of the expenses which she paid using her  debit card.  Mr Walsh also informed the complainant that she owed 75% of the cost of a course that she attended while she was employed.  The full cost of the course was €355.00.

In a very convoluted paragraph about “PTO” and holidays, Mr Walsh said, “no deductions will be made here.”  He concluded his email by saying,

“If I do not hear back from you regarding receipts and club property, the I will process this as things currently stand and you will receive this and all other exit documents in December.”

On November 6th, the complainant returned the hot water bottle and the electric blanket.  By the end of January 2025, she had still not been paid the money she was owed and she wrote again to Mr Walsh.  On February 11th, he replied and said that he had discovered that she was employed by another gymnastics club.  Her referred to a clause in her “Agreement” concerning a post-termination restriction, which, he said, meant that, for three months after her termination of employment, she was not permitted to work for a gymnastics club that is in competition with the company.  Mr Walsh said that he was “seeking legal counsel on the best course of action before proceeding with any final payment.”  He did not contact the complainant again, and, on May 21st 2025, she submitted this complaint to the WRC.

In her evidence, the complainant said that she was unaware of a conflict of interest clause in the “Day 5 Statement” of her terms and conditions of employment and the staff handbook that she submitted in her book of documents has no reference to such a clause.  She claims that she is entitled to be paid wages of €2,361.88 which Mr Walsh indicated would be paid to her in December 2024.

Timeframe for Submitting a Complaint

In accordance with s.41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, a complaint must be submitted to the WRC within six months of the date of the alleged contravention to which it relates.  This complaint is concerned with the failure of the respondent to pay the complainant’s wages in August 2024.  The complaint was submitted to the WRC on May 21st 2025 and, if they had attended the WRC hearing, the respondent may have argued that the time for submitting a complaint expired on November 20th 2025.

From the documents she presented at the hearing, it is clear that the complainant made persistent and ongoing efforts to be paid her wages after she was dismissed on August 21st 2025.  On that date, in a statement that was unlawful and intimidating, the club secretary and welfare officer, Mr James Walsh, wrote to the complainant and told her that, if she decided to appeal against her dismissal, her wages would be withheld.  The complainant decided to appeal and the hearing of her appeal was delayed by the respondent for spurious reasons (seeking an independent person, printer failure), eventually taking place on October 16th 2025.  It was chaired by the head coach, Ms Tierney and Mr Walsh also attended, although he was the person who dismissed the complainant.

Following the appeal, on November 5th, Mr Walsh wrote to the complainant and said, “I’m processing your last payslip now following the decision on the appeal.”  He asked her to return a book, a hot water bottle and an electric blanket, and said that the cost of these would be deducted if she failed to return them.  He said that he was deducting 75% of the €355.00, the cost of a judging course.  He said that he would “process this” in December.  The complainant returned the items the following day.  She sent an email to Mr Walsh to ask him for documentation that shows that she agreed to cover 75% of the cost of the judging course. 

The complainant sent a further three emails to Mr Walsh enquiring about her wages.  He replied finally on February 11th 2025 and indicated that, as the complainant had taken up employment with another gymnastics club, he wanted to take legal advice about a conflict of interest matter.  I am entirely satisfied that the complainant was not subject to a conflict of interest clause in her contract.  In any event, for an employee on an hourly rate of €15.00, who started a new job with a club in a different county, there could be no legal basis to such a clause.

On November 5th 2025, Mr Walsh confirmed to the complainant in writing that he was processing her wages for payment in December.  I am satisfied therefore, that the failure of the respondent to pay the complainant her wages materialised on December 1st 2025.  Based on this conclusion, I am satisfied that this complaint, submitted to the WRC on May 21st 2025, is within the statutory time limit set out at s.41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act.

Wages Properly Payable

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides that, to ground a complaint under the Act, wages must be properly payable:

(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.

The complainant’s evidence has not been rebutted, and her account of what occurred is supported by the correspondence she submitted from the respondent. On the day she was dismissed, August 21st 2025, Mr Walsh wrote to her and confirmed that she was due to be paid €2,361.88, comprising two weeks’ wages, six days “PTO” and one week’s notice.  I understand that the “PTO” is an abbreviation for “paid time off” when the complainant was attending the coaching course in Boston.  

Holidays Due at Termination of Employment

Payslips were not issued to the complainant from the date of her commencement with the respondent on November 14th 2023 until May 2024.  The payslips issued for May, June and July 2024 do not show any evidence of holiday pay.  As the complainant worked for 35 hours per week, and, as the total number of hours worked in 2024 until the date of her dismissal is 980, in accordance with s.19(1)(c) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, she is entitled to 8% of the hours she worked as holiday pay.  Based on this calculation, when she was dismissed, she was entitled to pay for 78.4 hours, equivalent to €1,176.00.    

Conclusion

I am satisfied that the respondent had an opportunity to attend the hearing on May 28th 2026 to rebut the complainant’s evidence that she received no wages for work done in July 2024.  I accept the complainant’s evidence and I am satisfied also, that she wasn’t paid for holidays due to her at the termination of her employment on August 21st 2024.  Based on the evidence, I have concluded that wages and holiday pay amounting to €3,537.80 which were properly payable were not paid, resulting in an illegal deduction of that amount from the complainant’s wages.

I decide that this complaint is well founded.  In respect of redress, in accordance with section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (as amended), I am required to direct the respondent to pay compensation as a net amount.  I estimate that no tax would have been due on wages of €3,537.80 and that combined deductions for PRSI and USC would have been in the region of 5%.  Therefore, in respect of unpaid wages and holiday pay, I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €3,360.00.

Failure to pay wages and holiday pay