Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Eoghan  Ryan

O’Meara Aspect Holdings Ltd Construction

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00077151-001

04/11/2025

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation.

He had applied successfully for a position as an Apprentice Carpenter with the respondent. His appointment was confirmed by way of a letter dated June 18tyh, 2025 in the course of which the position was confirmed as an apprentice at a rate of pay of €7.66 per hour for a thirty-nine hour week. He was to undergo a six week ‘trial period’.

He submitted in his oral evidence that Solas, The Further Education and Training Authority recommends that a trial period should not exceed two weeks.

In fact, the respondent did nothing to register him as an apprentice until he raised it on the conclusion of the trial period, around the end of August 2025. He was promised that this would be done.

He checked regularly over the course of the following two months as to whether he had been registered but nothing happened.

He quit his employment on October 24th and was contacted subsequently by Solas to say that he had been registered.

He submits that as he was not a registered apprentice for the period of his employment he should have been paid the National Minimum Wage.

The relevant, applicable hourly rates were €9.45 up to August 2nd when he turned eighteen and €10.80 per hour thereafter.

He said it was not uncommon that he would work fifty or more hours per week and detailed evidence of this taken from his payslips was submitted.

The respondent did not attend the hearing. Notice was sent by post and email, in the case of the latter t the email address to which the respondent consented to receive WRC communications on December 1st, 2025.

No explanation was received for the failure to attend.

The complainant submits that despite being paid on the basis of the apprenticeship rate he was essentially employed as a labourer but at a rate lower than the National Minimum Wage.

The Sectoral Employment Order (Construction Sector) 2024 came into effect on August 1st, 2025. This sets the statutory minimum rates of pay and other conditions (sick pay and pension entitlements) for persons employed in the construction sector, from August 1st  2025 and August 1st, 2026.

Apprentices are defined as ‘Workers who are registered as apprentices in accordance with the Industrial Training Act, 1967’.

In this case, the respondent failed to register the complainant as an apprentice for over two months but continued to pay him on the apprenticeship rate.

There are reasons why the apprenticeship rate is lower than that for other workers insofar as the person is on a course of learning and may not be contributing at the level of a more skilled or experienced worker.

But this must reflect what is actually happening. An employer may not tell a person that they are recruited as an apprentice and proceed to ignore the obligations placed on them to formalise the apprenticeship process. While some short delay would be acceptable two months is not.

The complainant made detailed submissions of the hours he worked in the period; some 535.5 in total. Just under 150 of these were at premium rates.

Included in his submission made after the hearing was a reference to annual leave which I have included in my calculation and public holidays which I have not because it was not clear to what this related.

The relevant rate under the National Minimum Wage (NMW) was €9.45 up until August 2nd when he turned 18 and it then increased to €10.60.

On the basis of the shortfall between his actual payments and what he received I find he is owed €1675.00 in respect of basic pay.

Applying the same criteria to his overtime payments (approximately 150 hours) he is due a further €403.31.

Correcting the shortfall to his eight days annual leave this produces another €195.90, a total of €2274.46. As already noted, I can make no finding on his claim related to public holidays due to the inadequacy of the information in the submission. There is an onus on a complainant to particularise his complaint which he failed to do in this respect.

I find therefore that the complaint is well founded, and the complainant is owed €2274.46 in unpaid wages which are due to him. I order that these should be paid subject to the usual statutory deductions.

Complaint CA-00077151-001 is well founded and I order the respondent to pay wages to the complainant in the amount of €2274.46 subject to normal lawful deductions.

Payment of wages. Apprenticeship.