ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00065253

Parties:

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kanak Khandelwal

Koffee And Gossip,

14, La Touche Road,

Inchicore, Bluebell,

Dubin 12

Representatives

Complaint:

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-00079664-001	16/01/2026

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/08/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 an employee can present a complaint or complaints of any perceived contravention by his or her Employer of any of the Acts (Statutes) contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015. Any such complaint (usually presented in the format of a workplace relations complaint form) is made to the Director General of the WRC. The said Director General can then refer the complaint to the Adjudication services. It is in these circumstances that this matter has come before me - an Adjudication Officer -engaged by the Adjudication division of the WRC to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or complaints made. Where appropriate, I hear the parties’ oral evidence, and I can give consideration to any supporting evidence provided by witnesses or any relevant documentation.

In this instance the Complainant has brought a complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 and where such a complaint is presented the Director General is empowered to refer that complaint forward for adjudication to the Adjudication Officer aforesaid.

This is a complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act provides that an employer must pay wages that are properly payable to an employee. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.

It should be noted that a non-payment of wages that are properly payable on a given occasion shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on that occasion (per Section 5(6)).

Section 5(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.

Background:

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 16th of January 2026. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date. The cognisable period is 17th of July 2025 to the 16th of January 2026.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was not represented and provided her own account of the facts of the dispute that has brought this matter before the WRC. The Complainant came alone.

The Complainant provided supporting documents when he first issued his complaint form. The Complaint Form is dated the 16th day of January 2026.

The Complainant provided further documentation in the run up to the hearing date.

The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which read as follows:

I was employed by the respondent as a café assistant on a part-time/casual basis. Between 28 November 2025 and 26 December 2025, I worked approximately 95+ hours, with specific clock-in and clock-out times recorded for each working day. Despite completing these hours, I have not been paid for the work carried out. I repeatedly followed up with the employer regarding payment. The employer delayed payment provided unclear and inconsistent explanations regarding payroll and emergency tax and ultimately failed to transfer the wages owed. I have retained detailed records of my working hours, including dates and times worked. Screenshots of relevant communications and a PDF summarising hours worked are being submitted in support of this complaint. I am submitting this complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 for non-payment of wages lawfully due to me.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the Respondent was duly notified of the date, time and venue of the hearing by correspondence issued by the WRC on the 30th of June 2026. The notification was sent by post and to the address supplied by the Complainant on the Workplace Relations Complaint Form.

Accordingly, I proceeded with the hearing in the absence of the Respondent. The evidence presented by the Complainant was treated as unchallenged. However, this did not restrict my statutory entitlement to make such enquiries as were necessary to clarify issues arising during the hearing.

Findings and Conclusions:

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the Complainant in support of her complaint. As promised, the Complainant provided me withdetailed records of her working hours, including dates and times worked. The Complainant also provided Screenshots of relevant communications and a PDF summarising hours worked. The Complainant identified a Mr. Kunal Goburdhan as the on-site Manager/ Café Owner who refused to pay the Complainant for the hours she had worked and refused to engage with the Complainant.

I am satisfied that over the roughly four weeks of employment that the Complainant worked for 95.25 hours. The Complainant was not paid for any of these hours.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint raised and in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

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

CA-00079664-001 – The complaint herein well founded and I direct that the Employer herein pay the amount of €2,000.00 to the Complainant.

Dated: 22nd of September2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Key Words: