Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jorge Lavina

Ducky Logistics Limited

Representatives

Self-represented

Chief Executive Officer

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-00077647-001

17/11/2025

The complainant was employed as a delivery driver with the respondent from March 2025 until he resigned on 15 January 2026.  The complaint concerns non-payment of a salary increase which the complainant asserts ought to have applied automatically from 27 September 2025.

During the hiring process for the van driver role, the respondent advised of an annual gross salary of  €30,000, which would increase to €32,000 gross after 6 months.  The salary increase was a decisive factor in the complainant’s decision to accept the job. 

The agreed salary increase was to apply automatically on 27 September 2025 but was not applied. 

The salary increase was agreed with the complainant before he commenced employment.

The salary increase is evidenced by the job advertisement and an audio message from the respondent’s Chief Executive Officer.

The respondent does not accept the complainant’s claim and denies that any wages are outstanding to the complainant. 

The respondent relies on the signed, written agreement between the parties which provides for a gross annual salary of €30,000.  The contract of employment expressly provides for a gross salary of €30,000 and does not provide for an automatic salary increase after 6 months. Any initial discussions did not create binding rights or obligations.

The respondent paid the complainant in accordance with the contract of employment and does not accept that any wages were unlawfully withheld or not paid.

The respondent requests dismissal of the complaint.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the “1991 Act”) requires deductions from wages be made in accordance with the provisions of that section. 

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

“(6) 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.”

The complainant asserts a breach of the 1991 Act on 27 September 2025 in the sum of €355.56, and monthly thereafter.

The complainant’s case is that he took up employment with the respondent on 27 March 2025 on the understanding that his salary would increase from €30,000.00 to €32,000.00 gross after six months of employment.  The complainant relied on an audio message, received from Mr Blanch, the respondent’s CEO, before the complainant accepted the position, and which the complainant characterised variously as a ‘pre-employment contractual representation’ and a ‘pre-employment verbal agreement’ that a salary increase would apply after 6 months in employment. The complainant further submitted that he did not receive the written contract of employment, which referred to a salary of €30,000.00, until approximately one month after he commenced employment.   

In the audio message, the content of which message was agreed, Mr Blanch states:-

“Regarding the salary, we pay €30,000 gross per annum and after 6 months we increase the salary to €32,000 gross per annum.”

The complainant also relies on a job advertisement posted on a recruitment platform in support of his case.  The job advertisement referred to “Salary:  €30,000.00 - €32,000.00 per year”. 

The respondent did not dispute sending an audio message to the complainant regarding the role and conditions of employment. The audio message was played at the hearing; Mr Blanch confirmed that the recording is of him providing information to prospective hires regarding the role.

On the information before me, the difference between the parties is that the complainant contends for an automatic salary increase payable from 27 September 2025, whereas the respondent maintains that any salary increase was contingent on productivity and not agreed.  In a message to the complainant on 3 November 2025, Mr Blanch refers to performance and productivity in the context of a salary increase.

I must assess wages properly payable to the complainant on the payroll dates the subject of the complaint that fall within the cognisable period, namely 27 September 2025 and the October payroll date.  On those dates the complainant was paid gross salary of €2,500.00.  This is the monthly payment of an annual gross salary of €30,000.00.

I am not satisfied of a pre-employment agreement between the parties in relation to a salary increase payable automatically after 6 months for the following reasons.  The audio message composed by Mr Blanch issued to potential new hires or those who had expressed an interest in the role.  At the outset of the message, Mr Blanch states that he is sending the audio to tell a little more about what the respondent is looking for and what it needs.  The audio concludes with Mr Blanch stating that hires would be made for the following week and that information would be provided regarding the next interview.  The complainant provided extracts of his messages with Mr Blanch around this time, including the complainant’s message in response to the audio message staying that he is interested in having an interview for further discussion on the position.  I did not have sight of any further messages between the complainant and Mr Blanch or any other information that supports an agreement between the parties that a salary increase would be payable after 6 months.  The audio message in and of itself does not evidence an offer, acceptance and intention to create legal relations, specifically having regard to the context in which it was sent and the subsequent dealings between the parties.

Subsequent to the audio message, in and around April 2025, the parties entered into a written agreement/employment contract which expressly provided for gross annual salary of €30,000.00, makes no reference to a salary increase and provides that any additional elements of pay (e.g. extra hours, bonus, shift allowance) will be specified separately in writing.   The written agreement is expressed to constitute the full agreement between the parties. When I asked the complainant about signing the written agreement which provided for a salary of €30,000.00 gross per annum and why he did not query the absence of any reference to a salary increase, the complainant said he thought he would get a new contract with the increased amount after completion of the 6-month probationary period referred to in the contract. 

For completeness, I am not satisfied that a pre-contractual statement or representation, by its nature and effect and on the established facts, can ground this claim for properly payable wages within the meaning of the 1991 Act.

Finally, notwithstanding my findings above, I find that there was no pay increase due on 27 September 2025, which payment date was in respect of month six of the complainant’s employment with the respondent.  On the complainant’s account, the contended for payment, if properly payable, fell due for payment in the October payroll run.

In conclusion, I find that the respondent paid to the complainant the total amount of wages that were properly payable to him on 27 September 2025 and subsequently in the October pay period, which were the relevant payment dates within the cognisable period of this complaint referred to the Commission on 17 November 2025.  I therefore find that the 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 1991 Act is not well founded.

Payment of Wages Act 1991 – Salary increase – Pre-employment agreement – Pre-contractual representation – Non-payment