ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00063030
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Khatuna Shiukashvili | Heather Foods & Catering Limited |
Representatives | Self-represented | No Attendance |
Complaint:
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-00076701-001 | 22/10/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint. The hearing was a remote hearing. The complainant gave evidence under affirmation with the assistance of an interpreter. There was no representative from the respondent company in attendance. As the company is registered on the company registration website as ‘normal’ and the notice of hearing was sent to the correct registered address, I decided to proceed with the hearing.
Background:
The complaint is that Ms. Shiukashvili did not receive two-weeks wages, which she claims was due to her. She also claims that she accrued a week’s holiday which was unpaid by the respondent company. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant gave testimony that she worked as a Kitchen Porter for the respondent company from 26th September 2024 to 12th September 2025. She said she received a letter of 20th October 2025 from the respondent stating that the business was closing immediately and that she would not be paid the final two weeks wages or remaining holiday pay. She said she was owed wages of €675.00 gross for the two weeks along with accrued holiday pay of €337.50 gross. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
A representative of the respondent did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was sent to the correct business address as per the company registration website. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00076701-001- Payment of Wages Complaint The Law Section 5 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides- An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless- (a) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute, (b) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee’s contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or (c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given prior consent in writing to it. Finding The first issue to be decided is whether wages were properly payable. Having enquired into the complaint and based on the complainant’s uncontested testimony, I find that there has been a breach of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act in that the complainant was not paid wages due when the business closed. The complainant gave evidence that she was owed two weeks wages of €675.00 at the time of closure. This is corroborated by the correspondence sent by the owner which states there was no means of paying the final two weeks wages due. The complainant also gave uncontested testimony that she was owed one weeks’ holiday pay of €337.50 I decide the complaint is well founded and that gross wages of €1,012.50 are payable by the respondent to the complainant. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I decide the complaint is well founded and that gross wages of €1,012.50 are payable by the respondent to the complainant. |
Dated: 23 September 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Payment of Wages |