Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Omar  Izquierdo Llovera

Ryanair Dac

Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr R Rowan BL instructed by

Fieldfisher Ireland LLP, Solicitors.

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-00074751-001

24/08/2025

The issue in contention concerns a Cabin crew member of an Airline. He was claiming that he was deducted Wages contrary to Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991. The employment began on the 21st August 2021 and continues.

The rate of pay was contested but was claimed by the Complainant to be €1,300 per month for an average of 15 hours per week.

The Complainant was self-represented. He gave an oral testimony supported by an extensive Written Submission. In essence his argument was that he had been demoted, following a disciplinary process, from a Supervisory position to a basic Crew Member position ( letter of the 7th February 2025). The amended Crew member salary was communicated via a letter dated the 11th April 2025 from Mr M in the HR Department.

The Complainant argued that this Reduction was in complete contravention of his Legal and Contractual Rights to the Supervisory Rate. He had a Written Contract to this effect. There was never any Legal written Contractual agreement, as would be required at a most basic Contract law level, between the Parties to reduce his rate of pay. Accordingly, the Reduction was an illegal Deduction as per Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991. The reduced rate of pay was not his “properly payable” wage as per the Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd [2020] IEHC 55 High Court decision. As such it had to automatically fall as being illegal under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

Reliance, for support, was placed on Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd [2020] IEHC 55 and  Petkus & Ots v Complete Highway Care Ltd [2017]IEHC 12

The Respondent was represented by Mr Rowan BL supported by a number of Senior Managers. A detailed written submission was submitted.

In essence the Respondent argued that the Complainant was confused at Law, possibly by a reliance on AI. The key issue was , as set out in the Highline Legal Decision of Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd [2020] IEHC 55 was to determine what was the “Properly payable” renumeration on which the Payment of Wages Act ,1991 could focus on.

Mr Rowan argued that the Rate of Pay, that had been clearly communicated to the Complainant, following the extensive Disciplinary Process was that of a base Level Cabin Crew member. Extensive correspondence was cited.

At best the change in Rates of Pay from Supervisor to Basic Crew was a Contractual issue for the Civil Courts or other Industrial Relations avenues. The Payment of Wages Act ,1991, was quite specific – “deductions” had to focus on the “properly payable rate” which in this case was the Basic Cabin Crew rate. 

Extensive inter party correspondence, in support, was submitted in evidence.

Accordingly, the Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act,1991 had no legal substance.

Mr Rowan BL noted that the Complainant submission appeared to have been significantly assisted by an AI process.

3:1       Legal context.

The Payment of Wages Act,1991 as Section 5 details what are legally permissible and not permissible submissions. In Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd [2020] IEHC 55 the learned Judge, Mr Justice MacGrath, at Paras 41 to 43 discussed the Properly Payable issues. Babianskas v First Glass Ltd [2016] IEHC  598 was also considered by Mr Justice MacGrath.

In summary, the key legal issue is what is “properly payable” and which the legality or otherwise of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, Section 5 deductions can be evaluated.

In this case the Complainant was clearly communicated with that he was moving to the Basic Cabin crew rate. This was understandably quite upsetting to him. However, it could not be argued that the new lesser rate was not the “Properly payable” rate for the Payment of Wages Act,1991.

Other legal avenues are open to the Complainant to dispute the Respondent employer Disciplinary policies that determined this decision. However , an action relying on Section 5 “Deductions” in the Payment of Wages Act,1991 is not appropriate.

Accordingly ,the Adjudication Decision has to be that the complaint as framed lacks a good standing. It is not Properly legally Founded and must be deemed Unsuccessful

Payment of Wages Act, Salary Reductions following Disciplinary actions.