Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Rayyan  Abd El Hai

Cg Dental Ltd trading as Green Dental

Representatives

-

 -

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-00073119-001

04/07/2025

The Complainant is a Canadian dentist who had previously worked with the Respondent’s dental business, via another associated entity named Crown Dental, in 2022 and 2023. That appointment was on the basis of a contract for services and the Complainant was paid commission related to the income he generated.

The Complainant went abroad but later decided to return to Ireland and in late 2024 the Respondent applied for an employment permit for him to come work for them from February 2025 as an employed dentist on €65,000 per annum. This was granted and the Complainant was furnished with a contract of employment.

It is not clear if that contract of employment was ever adhered to and after returning the Complainant was being paid gross on the basis of commission with discretion over his hours of work. The Complainant began working for the Respondent in January before the period his employment permit became valid on the 7th of February 2025. 

The parties fell out in May 2025 and the relationship ceased. The Complainant later filed a complaint under this act seeking payment for his contractual salary for April and May. The Respondent disputes that they owe him any money on the basis that they paid him any commission owing to him for that period and that the relationship was always solely on the basis of commission.      

The Complainant attended the hearing and provided oral and written submissions.

When he started in February 2025 the Respondent wanted to pay him on the basis of commission. Tax was not deducted at source aside from income generated from medical card patients.

The Complainant agreed contractual terms with the Respondent and he is simply asking for the Respondent to abide by them.

The Respondent’s owner Mr Xi Liu (known as Alex) and HR officer Ms Amanda Quen attended the hearing and made oral and written submissions on the Respondent’s behalf.

The Respondent was only established as a holding company in 2022. It has no employees. Their business employs people through Crown Dental and has another entity named KP Crown Dental Ltd. In the hearing Mr Liu indicated that he would be closing the Respondent very soon as a means of frustrating this statutory investigation.

The Respondent agreed a commission structure with the Complainant and paid him his commission. They had a contract of employment drawn up so he could get the critical skills permit which the Respondent paid for.

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 has provided a copy of the contract of employment provided to him by the Respondent which sets his salary at €65,000 per annum or €5417 per month. The same contract provides for a 40 hour working week. The employer identified in that contract was KP Crown Dental and not the Respondent. The Respondent is identified on the Complainant’s work permit.

The Complainant has furnished bank records indicating that he was paid €945 on the 24th of March the narrative reads “CD February,” on the 9th of April he was paid €1916.50 with the narrative stating “CD March,” which is also the narrative on a payment of €1445.82 received on the 17th of April. The final payment he received is €1715.48 on the 20th of May and the narrative to that payment reads “Crown Dental.” The Complainant has also provided a excel sheet titled 2025 April commission calculation which puts €1,715.48 as his commission payable for April.

All of the above payments were made from a KP Crown Dental Ltd however the Complainant also received payments from another company associated with the Respondent named Green Dental Limited. His submissions indicate that he received a total of €17,998.25 from the Respondent’s companies.

In post hearing submissions the Complainant indicated that he was owed €21,666.68 in gross salary for this period. However, he accepts he should have only received €15,886.32 as the Respondent should have, but didn’t, deduct tax. He submits he was overpaid on a net basis but underpaid on a gross basis.

The Complainant is requesting that the Respondent pay revenue €5,780.36 and he will refund of €1,111.93 for over payment of net salary or that the Respondent should pay €4,668.43 to him directly to allow him to settle taxes owed separately.

The Respondent has submitted records indicating that the Complainant’s attendance became sporadic over the course of April and May 2025. They have also submitted that the Complainant agreed to working on the basis of commission and have provided a whatsapp exchange from the end of January 2025 where he refers to working 11 days in January and making over €8000, stating “I think we will be okay for the visa salary, you don’t have to worry.”

In the circumstances I am not satisfied of a number key facts which would allow me to make findings that sums are properly payable to the Complainant by the Respondent under this act. I am not able to make findings that the Complainant was an employee rather than a self-employed contractor and thus encompassed by the act. If the Complainant was an employee it is not clear whether he was employed by the Respondent or KP Crown Dental Ltd or a different entity. If he was employed by the Respondent I am not satisfied that sums are properly payable to him as it is unclear how many hours he worked in April or May and could have accrued salary for.  

I find that the complaint is not well founded.