Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ahmad  Al-Jarihi

BJ Harper & Sons Ireland Limited

Representatives

Voltedge Management Limited

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-00078267-001

04/12/2025

The Complainant, a labourer with the Respondent, gave evidence on affirmation as did a former colleague, Mr Gaiht Al Zoubi. It was the Complainant’s complaint that the Respondent did not pay him wages which were due on 1 November 2025.

An Arabic interpreter was presented for the Complainant and his witnesses. He swore an affirmation.

Mr Brian Harper, Director and Ms Paula Ingram, Accountant, gave evidence for the Respondent on affirmation. The Respondent was represented by Ms Laura Borland of Voltedge Management Limited.

The Complainant worked as a labourer from 21 October 2025 – 1 November 2025 and agreed payment of €21 per hour. He worked 28 hours the first week and 53 hours the second week.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that he was an employee of the Respondent was owed the sum of €746 for hours worked. It was his evidence that he was not a sub-contractor but an employee.

In response to the Respondent’s offer to pay the sum of €746 to the Complainant, it was his evidence that the impact of the delayed payment has resulted in a delay in payment of university fees for his children and sought compensation of 6 months wages.

He stated he wrote to the Respondent but did not receive a reply on 20 November 2025. He also stated he messaged Mr Harper who initially responded but then ceased communication.  

Mr Gaiht Al- Zoubi gave evidence on behalf of the Complainant. It was his evidence he worked for the Respondent for 2.5 days and was paid in full.

Ms Paula Ingram, Accountant for the Respondent, gave evidence that the Complainant, a sub-contractor, was paid via the Revenue Contracts Tax (RCT) system and initially deductions were made at a higher tax rate.

On 18 March 2026, an email was sent to the Complainant stating that the Complainant was not an employee but a sub-contractor and offering to make the payment of €746.

It was submitted by Ms Ingram, that it took time to register his bank account on the RCT system and it was not until 24 August 2026 was this completed.

Mr Brian Harper explained that the Respondent was a contractor for another construction company. At all times it sought to comply with its obligations and repeated the offer to pay the Complainant any outstanding payments.

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 defines an employee and employer:

"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; and for the purpose of this definition, a person holding office under, or in the service of, the State (including a member of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces) or otherwise as a civil servant, within the meaning of the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956, shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the State or the Government, as the case may be, and an officer or servant of a local authority for the purposes of the Local Government Act 2001 (as amended by the Local Government Reform Act 2014), a harbour authority, a health board or a member of staff of an education and training board shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the authority or board, as the case may be;

"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;”

There was no contract between the parties detailing their employment or sub-contractor relationship. However, it was agreed that the Complainant would be paid €21 per hour.

There was no evidence that the Complainant submitted invoices for his work. Nor was there any reference to valued added tax (VAT).

However, it was not disputed that Complainant “signed in” daily to the site.

He submitted he was requested for his Personal Public Service (PPS) Number and not a Tax Reference Number (TRN) which is procedure required for subcontractors.

The Respondent submitted that there was no set roster or scheduled and the Complainant did not come to work on two days.

The Respondent was the Principal Subcontractor who subsequently engaged the Complainant for a two-week period.

It is noteworthy that neither party produced any supporting documentation from Revenue, in particular a Site Identifier Number (SIN).

Having regard to the evidence presented and that the Supreme Court Judgment in Revenue Commissioners v Karshan Midlands (Ltd t/a Domino’s Pizza [2023] IESC 24wherein it was held:

“Are the terns of the contract between the employer and the worker interpreted in the light of the admissible factual matrix and having regard to the working arrangements between the parties as disclosed by the evidence , consistent with a contract of employment, or with some other form of contract having regard ,in particular , to whether the arrangements point to the putative employee working for themselves or for the putative employer.”

For these reasons I find the working arrangements were consistent with a contract of employment and not a contract for services.

Therefore, I find the Complainant falls within the jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides:

“5.—(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) 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 his prior consent in writing to it.

(2) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of

(a) any act or omission of the employee, or

(b) any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment,

unless—

(i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee, and

(ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee), and

(iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with—

(I) in case the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing, a copy thereof,

(II) in any other case, notice in writing of the existence and effect of the term,

and

(iv) in case the deduction is in respect of an act or omission of the employee, the employee has been furnished, at least one week before the making of the deduction, with particulars in writing of the act or omission and the amount of the deduction, and…”

The Respondent did not dispute the amount of €746 and accepted it writing on 18 March 2026 that it was willing to pay the sum of €746 to the Complainant.

Consequently, I find the complaint is well founded.

Redress is provided for under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991:-

“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.”

Where the complaint has been well founded, I find he is entitled to compensation in the net sum of €746 in accordance with Section 1 (b) (i) the definition of wages.