Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Serene  Itani

Day-Today Ashbourne

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00075715-001

24/09/2025

The Complainant applied for employment with the Respondent, a small newsagent, after observing a vacancy notice displayed at the premises. The Complainant attended the shop, engaged with the Respondent, and subsequently undertook a period of training and work. The Complainant asserts that this training was conducted at varying hours, that no written contract or statement of terms was provided, and that they were informed the training would be unpaid. The Complainant further maintains that they later worked alone in the shop and were told they would be paid €12.50 per hour in cash only for time worked independently.

A dispute arose between the parties regarding payment for the hours worked. The Complainant contends that payment was withheld on the basis that they had not provided a passport or PPS number, a requirement which they state had not been communicated in advance. The Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that payment could only be processed through payroll upon receipt of the necessary documentation and denies any refusal to pay wages lawfully due. It is accepted that a sum of €75 was paid to the Complainant, with disagreement remaining as to whether any further wages are properly payable in respect of the period worked.

The Complainant states that they responded to a notice displayed in the Respondent’s shop window advertising work and attended the premises to enquire about the position. The Respondent operates a small newsagent in the town. The Complainant contends that they were required to attend training at variable hours and were informed that this training would be unpaid. At the time the training took place, no written contract of employment or formal terms of employment had been provided.

The Complainant asserts that they were told they would only be paid once they were capable of working alone. The Complainant states that they subsequently worked alone in the shop and were later asked to undertake additional training. They were informed that they would be paid €12.50 per hour in cash, but only for the hours during which they worked alone.

When the Complainant queried payment, they were advised that payment would not be made unless they produced a passport or PPS number. The Complainant states that this requirement had not been communicated prior to their attendance for training or work. The Complainant also requested contact details for the owner of the business but states that this information was initially withheld by the manager and was only provided after the Complainant indicated an intention to pursue the matter through the Small Claims Court.

The Complainant states that they subsequently contacted the owner, who confirmed that no payment would be made for training hours and that only half of the wages claimed would be paid. The Complainant indicated that they did not agree with these terms. The Respondent paid the Complainant €75. The Complainant contends that a further €75 remains outstanding and that both the owner and manager have stated that no further payment will be made. The Complainant submits that this complaint has been lodged to recover payment for work already performed.            

The Respondent’s manager states that the Complainant initially attended the shop seeking employment and submitted a CV. The manager thereafter contacted the Complainant and invited her to attend for an interview. During that meeting, the manager states that they explained the shop’s rules and operational procedures, including opening and closing duties. As the Complainant had no prior experience working in a retail environment, the manager invited her to undertake a one‑hour trial to assess her suitability for the role.

The manager states that during this time it became apparent that the Complainant was unfamiliar with cigarette and tobacco products. The manager queried whether the Complainant was over 18 years of age, to which she replied that she was. The manager states that the Complainant was asked to provide identification, a PPS number and proof of address so that the owner could arrange her registration on the payroll. According to the manager, the Complainant agreed to provide these documents.

The manager states that the Complainant worked additional hours in the shop alongside other staff members. After a number of days, the manager contacted the Complainant by text message requesting that the documentation be provided so that the accountant could register her for payroll. The manager states that no response was received. According to the manager, the Complainant subsequently requested payment in cash, which the manager refused, stating that the owner did not permit cash payments.

The manager states that the Complainant later contacted her seeking payment and stated that she had worked more than ten hours. The manager responded that payment would be arranged once the PPS number and required documentation were provided to the accountant. The manager states that these documents were not provided.

The manager further states that on a later occasion the Complainant attended the shop accompanied by another individual, who requested payment on her behalf. The manager states that she explained that she was not the owner and could not make payments directly, and that wages could be processed once the necessary documentation was supplied. The manager states that the Complainant later attended again with her sister and sought payment and the owner’s contact details. The manager states that while the Complainant was upset, she reiterated that payment would be made through payroll once the required documents were provided.

The manager states that she contacted the owner, who confirmed that there was no issue with paying the Complainant once a payslip could be generated. The owner authorised the release of €75 at that time and indicated that the balance would be paid once the Complainant provided the necessary documentation. The manager states that the €75 was paid and that the Respondent did not refuse to pay the outstanding amount but maintained that payment could only be made through payroll upon receipt of the required documents.

Introduction

The complaint herein is brought pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994–2014.  I Have noted that eth narrative in the complaint form sets out that the Complainant complaint relates to a complaint under s6 of the Payment of the Wages Act, 1991 and I have notified the parties of this at the hearing and have proceeded to hear the matter on that basis.  The Complainant alleges that the Respondent made an unlawful deduction from the Complainant’s wages, or failed to pay wages properly payable, in contravention of section 5 of the Act. The deduction and/or non‑payment was not authorised by statute, by the contract of employment, nor by the prior written consent of the Complainant. The complaint was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission within the statutory time limits, and the Complainant seeks a determination that the Respondent has acted unlawfully under the Act.

Burden and Standard of Proof

In complaints under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the initial burden of proof rests with the Complainant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that a deduction was made from wages, or that wages properly payable were not paid. Once the fact of a deduction or non‑payment is established, the burden shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that the deduction was lawful within the meaning of section 5(1) of the Act, namely that it was required or authorised by statute, permitted by the contract of employment, or consented to in advance and in writing by the Complainant.

Monies Owed

It is not contested that the Complainant performed work for the Respondent, nor is it contested that the amount of such work would €150 and the Respondent has already paid the Complainant €75 in cash in half settlement after some effort on the part of the Complainant.

The Complainant was told that they were not entitled to the money without providing the Respondent with papers to prove their age to sell cigarettes and for PAYE purposes. The Complainant for reasons they broadly outlined are not comfortable doing this.

The Respondent offered to pay the Complainant cash from their own pocket to satisfy the €75 claim, but only on condition they provide the documents.

The Legal Position

The Respondent had hired the Complainant on the basis of training or trial and does not deny the overall debt. The withholding of the €75 euro without reasonable reason to do so does not constitute a lawful deduction.  It has not been said beyond the need to be 18 to sell cigarettes why the documents should be required and the matter remains an impasse between the parties.

It is, of course, reasonable to require ID documentation for compliant with PAYE and other legal matters and such things are important. They are so important that a person should not be employed before that matters are established. This absence of due diligence is the fault of the Respondent, and it is not proper having hired an individual and having had them work that they wish to withhold payment under any circumstances,

I am not required to look at this non-payment through the eyes of Revenue law nor any other law outside of the Payment of Wages Act and they hold no sway in my decision. The Complainant has worked their side of the bargain and should be paid appropriately, it is never correct to say that a person should not be paid for training days and the matter for ensuring compliance with other statutes prior to employment rest squarely with the Respondent.

It is clear to me that the Complainant has worked the hours, and it is not denied and they should be paid the balance of their payment it being the uncontested amount of €75.00.

 For the reasons set out above the complaint in terms of the Payment of Wages Act is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the €75.00 properly owed.

wages, deduction, entitlement, payroll, documentation, dispute