ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00061338
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Caroline Dalton | Money Af Limited |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00074943-001 | 29/08/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/05/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following 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.
Background:
The Complainant was CEO of the Respondent company while it was engaged in launching an existing consumer beauty product brand in Ireland. In May and June 2025 the Complainant was not paid her full wages and then left the business. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant attended the hearing and made detailed oral and written submissions. There was a lot of goodwill on her behalf and she wanted the company to succeed. When it ran into cashflow issues she held off taking her full wages for May so that the other employees would be paid. She sought agreement from the directors to cease some payments being made out of the company but this was not forthcoming and her salary was stopped in June and she then resigned. The Complainant sought to resign immediately but the Respondent refused on the basis that she needed to do handover and agreed to pay her to the end of June. This was set out in email correspondence. The Respondent continued trading for about a year and then went into liquidation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was on notice of the hearing but did not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This complaint arises under section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 which provides that an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee unless authorised by statute, contract, or with the prior written consent of the employee. The initial burden rests on the Complainant to establish that wages properly payable were not paid. Once such a deduction is established, the evidential burden shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that the deduction was lawful. The Complainant gave clear and credible evidence that she worked for the Respondent and was paid €18,333.33 per month and that she was only paid half her salary in May and then no salary in June. In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, I am satisfied that the failure to pay the outstanding wages constitutes an unlawful deduction within the meaning of the Act. I also note that the Complainant sought to raise an employer pension contribution payments not made for the same period however "wages" as defined by the act specifically excludes “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”. |
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 that the complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €27,500 less any lawfully deducted taxes. |
Dated: 08-05-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|