Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mabrouk  Abbas

Paint Effects Ltd

Representatives

Self-represented

None in attendance

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-00077775-001

20/11/2025

The complaint referred to the WRC on 20 November 2025 was expressed to be in respect of unpaid wages in the sum of €2,210.00, owed to the complainant for duties completed.

The complaint specific detail provided by the complainant on referral of his complaint was that the respondent had engaged the complainant to work for a full month and that the complainant had not received the payment owed to him, despite completing all tasks requested during the period and working the agreed hours.  The complaint further detailed that the complainant had asked the respondent several times throughout the month about his wages, but no payment was made and no explanation provided.

Thea complainant’s evidence at the hearing was that the sum of €2,210.00 was owed by the respondent for work carried out by the complainant and his brother.  The complainant outlined how the respondent made a weekly payment to the complainant’s brother in respect of work they were doing on a third-party site in North Dublin but that they had not been paid for the last week’s work.  The third-party was the respondent’s customer and the respondent sub-contracted the work to the complainant and his brother.  The respondent made payment by bank transfer to the complainant’s brother’s bank account and the complainant’s brother transferred half the amount to the complainant after deducting a sum for tax.  The complainant confirmed that the sum of €2,210.00, the subject of the complaint to the Commission, was the total sum owed to the complainant and his brother. The complainant calculated approximately €900.00 of the €2,210.00 sum as owing to the complainant in respect of approximately 6 days’ work carried out by him at the end of June or beginning of July 2026.

An email sent on behalf of the respondent at 3.36pm on 3 September 2026 was brought to my attention following the hearing.  It stated that the respondent “was available and prepared today for the scheduled meeting with the subcontractor, Mabrouk Abbas” but that due to a mix-up, mistakenly believed the meeting was scheduled for 3.00pm and discovered the hearing time after they had been online for 30 minutes waiting for others to join.  It queried whether the meeting could be rescheduled.

This was the only engagement by the respondent with the Commission in relation to the case.

The complaint referred under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the “1991 Act”) was that the complainant’s employer had not paid the complainant €2,210.00 for work completed, which sum fell due for payment on 10 July 2025.  

The hearing on 3 September 2026 was assisted by an interpreter and proceeded in the absence of the respondent.  The respondent was notified of the hearing arrangements by correspondence dated 16 June 2026 and emailed by the hearing concierge on 21 and 27 August 2026, which emails reiterated the hearing start time.  The arrangements on 3 September 2026 were resourced and designated exclusively to the hearing of the within case.  I am not satisfied that the respondent’s mix-up or oversight in relation to the hearing arrangements constitutes grounds for rescheduling the hearing in the circumstances of this case.  An alternative approach to this issue would have implications for resources and the WRC’s scheduling system.

Application of the Law

Section 5 of the 1991 Act prohibits an employer from making a deduction from an employee’s wages unless the deduction is made in accordance with that section.

Section 5(6) of the 1991 Act provides:-

“Where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,

then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.”

At the hearing the complainant advised that the sum owed was for work carried out by the complainant and his brother for the respondent at a third-party site in North Dublin.  The complainant further advised that he and his brother worked at this site from the end of May 2025 for 6 weeks and that the respondent paid them weekly by bank transfer to the complainant’s brother’s bank account.

In response to my questions, the complainant advised that approximately €900.00 of the €2,210.00 was due to the complainant for work done by him.  The complainant further advised that the third-party was the respondent’s client and that the respondent sub-contracted the work to the complainant and his brother.

The complainant submitted an invoice and bank statements in support of his complaint. 

Based on the information before me, I have cause to consider the application of the 1991 Act to the complainant and his standing to refer a complaint under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (the “2015 Act”).  Section 3 of the 2015 Act provides for ‘employer’ and ‘employee’ to be construed in accordance with the 1991 Act.

Section 1 of the 1991 Act in relevant part provides:-

‘…

"contract of employment" means—

(a) a contract of service or of apprenticeship, and

(b) any other contract whereby an individual agrees with another person to do or perform personally any work or service for a third person (whether or not the third person is a party to the contract) whose status by virtue of the contract is not that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual, and the person who is liable to pay the wages of the individual in respect of the work or service shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be his employer,

whether the contract is express or implied and if express, whether it is oral or in writing;

…

"employee" means a person who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment and references, in relation to an employer, to an employee shall be construed as references to an employee employed by that employer; …

"employer", in relation to an employee, means the person with whom the employee has entered into or for whom the employee works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment;”

On the complainant’s account, the complainant did not enter into or work under a contract of employment with the respondent within the meaning of section 1 of the 1991 Act. The complainant submitted documentation from the Revenue Commissioners and an invoice which evidenced a sub-contractor agreement between the complainant’s brother and the respondent.  The complainant advised that the respondent subcontracted painting work to the complainant and his brother and that the sum of €2,210.00 was due to them in respect of work they carried out for the respondent on a particular site in North Dublin.  The complainant submitted bank account statements for a certain period which evidenced payments by the respondent to the complainant’s brother’s bank account.   The statements did not cover the timeframe in respect of which the complainant contended payment was not made by the respondent. 

The evidence before me supports an agreement between the complainant’s brother and the respondent.  I am not satisfied of an agreement between the complainant and respondent pertaining to personal service provision or performance such as to ground either a contract of service or any other contract within the meaning of a contract of employment under section 1 of the 1991 Act.

In the circumstances, I find that the complainant does not have standing as an employee to maintain this complaint under the 1991 Act.  Accordingly, my decision is that this complaint of a contravention of section 5 of the 1991 Act is not well founded. 

For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint of a contravention of section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is not well founded.

Complaint of non-payment of wages – Contract of employment – Employer – Employee – Locus standi