Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ilona  Dratwa

 OCS One Complete Solutions Limited

Representatives

Self Represented

IBEC Representative

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-00074845-001

26/08/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00074845-002

26/08/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00074845-003

26/08/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00074845-004

26/08/2025

The Complainant is employed as a Cleaner and claimed that on four occasions the Respondent did not pay her the correct amount of wages due.

The Complainant commenced employment on October 1st 2023 as a Cleaner and remains in employment.

The Complainant lodged four complaints regarding various amounts not being paid to the Complainant as follows;

Date                              Euros

23/1/25                      303.75

5/3/25                         303.75

12/6/25                        303.75

6/8/25                             75.37

In correspondence on 26/8/26 with the WRC (prior to the Hearing) the Complainant informed the WRC that all the above amounts had been paid by the Respondent. At the Hearing the Complainant confirmed all amounts claimed had been paid and that her issue was the delay in the payment, that some was paid in a different tax year resulting in issues with tax and that she would not use her own phone to log into the Respondents payroll system.

The Complainant is alleging that the Respondent made unlawful deductions from her wages. The Respondent refutes any allegation that they made an unlawful deduction.

The Cognisable period for this claim is 26 February 2025 to 26 August 2026.

Preliminary Argument

The cognisable period for this claim is 26 February 2025 to 26 August 2025. The Complainant has submitted multiple emails and pay slips that are outside the cognisable period. The Respondent respectfully submits that these emails and payslips are outside the 6-month time limit that is prescribed in legislation and therefore the Adjudication Officer does not have jurisdiction to hear them.

Background to the Respondent

 OCS is a global facilities services business with 120,000 staff members and 8,000 customers across Ireland, the UK, Europe, APAC, and the Middle East. The company provides services in the areas of cleaning, catering, hard services, pest control, security, and facilities management.

Background to the Complainant

 The Complainant transferred to the cleaning division of OCS on 2 October 2023 under the Transfer regulations.  The Complainant is contracted to work 15 hours per week and earns €14.80 (gross) per hour.

Respondent’s Position

The Complainant is alleging that the Respondent made unlawful deductions from her wages. The Respondent concedes that there was an underpayment in wages properly payable to the Complainant due to the Complainants failure to clock in and out correctly and administrative error.

The Respondent has rectified these under payments already and has paid all monies owed to the Complainant (as submitted) and the Complainant by her own admission in her claim from states “I received back pay two weeks later” and “I uploaded two payslips: the one where I wasn’t paid, and the one I received after following up, showing that the payment had been made”

The Respondent submitted that there is no live dispute between the parties for determination by an Adjudication Officer as the Complainant has been paid all money owed to her within the cognisable period and therefore this case is moot.

In Goold v Collins [2004] IEHC 38,  the Supreme Court accepted that where there is no longer any legal dispute between the parties the principle of mootness applies when it held that mootness means “when a decision will not have the effect of resolving some controversy affecting or potentially affecting rights of parties”

The Respondent conclude by stating there is no live dispute between the parties as all monies owed has been paid to the Complainant.

The Complainant confirmed to the Hearing (and prior to the Hearing in correspondence) that all monies claimed as deductions had been paid by the Respondent.

The Complainants advised the Hearing that her main issue for resolution was the delay in the payments and that she had to use her own phone when recording hours on the Respondent App. The Respondent advised that the Complainant was the only employee with an issue in this respect. It was pointed out to the Parties by the Adjudicator that he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue of the use of an App or late payment under the Act.

The Respondent, through the ultimate payment of the outstanding wages, accepted that a deduction from wages properly payable had occurred but did not pay the wages at the due time as it did not have the proper record of the hours worked due to the Complainant not using the App to log hours worked.

Conclusions;

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act states that an employee may present a complaint to the WRC that his or her employer has contravened section 5 of the Act.  The Complainant confirmed to the Hearing that all monies claimed had been paid by the Respondent. There is no provision specifically in section 5 in regard to the late payment of wages that are ultimately paid or the manner of recording hours.

Redress allowed

“6. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4C or 5 as respects a deduction made by an employer from the wages or tips or gratuities of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding—

(a) the net amount of the wages, or tip or gratuity as the case may be (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that—

(i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or

(ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,

or

(b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.”

In this case the  Complainant has been paid all outstanding payments due and given she was the main contributor to the delay in being properly paid on the dates noted above by not using the standard (and reasonable) mechanism to record hours, I find no justification to consider the award of compensation. Therefore, I find this complaint to be not well-founded.. 

I find the complaint not well founded.

Compensation