ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00059173
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Marian Zait-Tintisan | Wanzl (Ireland) Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives | Marius Marosan | Ellis McMullin – Business Unit Director |
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-00071883-001 | 26/05/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/11/2025
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 the 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 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.
In particular there 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), 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)).
By way of preliminary observation, I am satisfied a Contract of Employment existed between the parties such that a wage defined by the 1991 Act was payable to the Employee by the Employer in connection with the employment. I further find that the Complainant’s Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 26th of May 2025 gives rise to a cognisable period starting from the 27th of November 2024 to the 26th of May 2025.
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. In line with the coming into effect of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 on the 29th of July 2021, I can confirm that the witnesses herein were required to give their evidence on oath or affirmation. This was done in anticipation of the fact that there may have been a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to the complaint. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence. The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 26th of May 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was fully represented. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. I was provided with a comprehensive submission dated the 20th day of November 2025. I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. The evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent witness EM the Business Unit Director for the Respondent company. The Complainant alleges that his employer has paid him less than the amount due to him over a ten-week period from November 2024 to February 2025 by withholding legitimate expenses accrued in the course of the employment and wages thereby forcing the Complainant to pay expenses out of his after tax disposable income. The claim is set out as follows: I was asked, as a favour for my manager, to cover a couple of days on a site far from Dublin. I was promised that travel and toll expenses will be covered. Those couple of days turned into months and no expenses were covered. My manager kept promising that I will be reimbursed so I won't be out of pocket, but that never happened. On 10/03/2025 I have sent a formal email requesting for the owed amount to be paid. My email remained unanswered to this day. In return, the company reduced my hours and invented a complaint against me and now I am suspended, pending investigation. Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent entity was represented by a number of witnesses including EM the Business Unit Director and SS the head of HR. The Respondent provided me with two written submissions dated on or about the 24th and 25th of November 2025. I have additionally heard evidence from EM on affirmation. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. The Respondent witness was challenged as appropriate by the Complainant’s representative. The Respondent rejects that there has been a contravention of the Payment of Wages legislation. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in this matter. The Complainant was engaged as a Chargehand Supervisor by the Respondent company which is a company which provides trolley monitoring services to large urban retail and shopping centres. The Respondent operates in many of the larger shopping sites in Dublin and as well as an outlier site up in Navan County Meath. The Complainant was engaged at the Charlestown site in Finglas but moved almost immediately to the Blanchardstown shopping facility wherein he worked from July 2022 up until November 2024. The Complainant was asked by his direct Line Manger TC to make himself available for a few days of supervision up at the Navan site. The Complainant was told that the Supervisor up there was on sick leave. TC did not direct the Complainant to the Handbook wherein there is a section on the claiming of expenses. To be fair, the Complainant would probably not have raised an issue had the secondment been in operation for the expected two or three days. However, in the end the Complainant was driving up and down to Navan for a period of about ten weeks and this equated to about fifty working days. I note that the tolls cost €5.00 per day of travel and that fuel expenses were in the region of at least €10.00 per day of travel. I have to be mindful of the fact that the Payment of Wages Act generally excludes expenses incurred by the Employee in carrying out employment. It seems to me that the Employer cannot have expected that the Employee should absorb this financial exposure as an out of pocket expense to be borne by the complainant travelling a daily round trip in his own car through two tolls to the Navan site. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant was meant to be recompensed by way of some sort of allowance to ensure that he was not unfairly deducted from his after-tax remuneration. In the circumstances I am finding in favour of the Complainant in the sum of €18.00 per day or a gross lump sum of €900.00. As I am finding that this has been an unlawful deduction from the Complainant’s wage this figure will be run through payroll in due course.
|
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00071883-001 – The complaint herein is well-founded and I direct that the Respondent should pay to the Complainant a gross sum of €900.00
|
Dated: 05th of December 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|