Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Pavan Sai Sridhar  Tanneru

Volkswagen Financial Services

Representatives

 Ibec

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00076487-001

16/10/2025

The complainant worked with Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland(VWFSI) as a Quantitative Risk Analyst. In late September 2025, he noticed that his pay was short by 3.5 days (3 working days and 0.5 annual leave day).

He raised this with Payroll and copied HR, who had all the information needed to correct it. However, even after following up, it was not acknowledged. He then formally escalated the matter as a Grievance, Stage 3 Appeal on, but there had been no response or payment made at the date of the referral to the WRC.

The complainant submits that this amounts to an unlawful deduction of wages under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. He says that a breach of the Act still arises despite the subsequent payment.

The respondent submits that this matter arose due to an error and was settled in full to the complainant’s satisfaction at  mediation. The outstanding payment was made in December 2025.

I note that the outstanding wages have been paid to the complainant following mediation between the parties. This occurred some time after the event.

In normal circumstances the proceedings and outcome of a mediation are governed by the strict confidentiality provisions of the agreement to mediate. Obviously in these circumstances the respondent may be forgiven for bringing the fact of the settlement to the attention of the adjudication.

In its submission the respondent is critical of the complainant’s decision to proceed to adjudication despite having settled the matter and obviously the parties either overlooked it or failed to address this issue as part of the mediation agreement.

That said, there would have had to be some consideration for any compromise agreement that exceeded the complainant’s contractual entitlement. Accordingly the complainant is not estopped in any way for pursuing his complaint to the WRC.

The Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides for a remedy in cases of a breach of the Act at Section 6(2).

Where a rights commissioner decides, as respects a complaint under this section in relation to a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is well-founded in regard to the whole or a part of the deduction or payment, the commissioner shall order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he thinks reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding

(a)     the net amount of the wages (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

I do not regard the respondent’s explanation that this was an error as acceptable. The matter had been brought to its attention by means of a grievance from the complainant and its subsequent agreement to make a payment to the complainant does not mend the original breach of the Act, and it took none of the required steps to provide for its mediation agreement doing so.

Accordingly I award the complainant €500 in compensation which should be paid to him without deductions.

Complaint CA-00076487-001 is well founded and I award the complainant €500 in compensation which should be paid to him without deductions.

Wages