Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Iker Sanchez

5 Star Stay Limited

Representatives

Represented himself 

Did not attend the hearing

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-00073435-001

15/07/2025

The complainant is a Spanish national and an instructor in the game of padel.  He commenced employment with the respondent, a padel club, on October 12th 2024.  From then until the end of January 2025, he worked at weekends and occasionally during the week as relief cover.  In February 2025, he started working 33 hours per week.  Of this, the complainant said that around 10 hours were spent coaching classes.  A contract issued to him on April 24th 2025 shows that he was employed as a receptionist / coach on an hourly rate of €15.00 which was to be paid monthly.  He submitted a document in preparation for the hearing, in which he said that, in addition to his hourly rate, he was paid €5.00 per hour for private lessons, €7.50 for lessons for two people, €10.00 for three people and €12.50 for each class that he coached with four people.

The complainant submitted his hours every month on timesheets, which he referred to as invoices.  At the end of May 2025, he and the owner of the company had a dispute about the amount he claimed in wages for that month.  It appears that he included overtime hours on his timesheets.  In his evidence, he said that he had a discussion with the owner on May 29th 2025, at which the owner accused him of overcharging for the hours he worked.  He said that the owner gave him an option; to stay on and to accept his wages for May with a deduction of €1,000, or to leave and be paid the full amount.

In the documents he submitted for the hearing, the complainant included a copy of an email he sent to the owner on May 30th 2025.  In the email, he said that he didn’t realise that overtime shouldn’t be included on the invoices.  He said that he didn’t intend to overcharge his employer and that it was a miscommunication.  He said that he had decided to resign and to accept the full payment for May.  He concluded his email saying,

“I want to thank you for the opportunity and for the past eight months we’ve worked together.  I appreciate everything I’ve learned during this time and I apologise for any negative experiences.

“I wish you all the best and I hope your business reaches new heights.”

In a replying email the following day, the owner alleged that the complainant repeatedly overcharged him when he submitted his timesheets, that he was involved in unauthorised cash transactions and that he abused his position to benefit himself financially.  The owner claimed that the “total value of the amounts you obtained improperly is now confirmed to be approximately €2,000.”  The owner concluded his email as follows:

“As a result, once these financial losses are applied, there is no outstanding amount owed to you whatsoever.  This matter is now fully closed.  Any claims you may believe you are entitled to have been more than fully offset by the financial damage you caused to the business.

“For the avoidance of doubt, I take this type of behaviour extremely seriously.  Theft of this nature can be pursued both civilly and criminally.  If you attempt to challenge or escalate this matter any further, I will have no hesitation in providing the full evidence to the relevant authorities for legal action.

“I strongly suggest you reflect very seriously on your actions, accept that this matter is closed and avoid any further communication on this issue.”

The complainant’s Revenue record for May shows that he received no wages from the respondent that month.  He claims that he is owed €2,957, based on 33 hours for four weeks at €15.00 per hour and €977.50 for coaching.  He also claims an entitlement to holidays not taken up to the date of the termination of his employment.  He said that he took two days’ holidays in May 2025.

May 2025 Wages

The evidence submitted by the complainant in the form of timesheets and bank transfers from the respondent to the complainant and shows that he was employed from October 2024, initially on a part-time basis at €14.00 per hour.  The timesheets show that, in February 2025, his hourly rate was increased to €15.00.  His contract of employment shows that he was required to work 32 hours per week, although, at the hearing, he said that he worked for 33 hours per week.

In his email to the complainant on May 31st 2025, the respondent informed him that he wouldn’t be paid his wages for May, due to the financial damage he caused to the business. 

Clause 24 of the contract issued to the complainant on April 24th 2025 refers to a disciplinary procedure which, at paragraph 24.3, provides that,

“The Company commits to ensuring that a fair disciplinary hearing will be held at all formal stages of the disciplinary procedure (stages 1 through 4).  The purpose of a fair disciplinary hearing is to put the complaints to the Employee, allow them the opportunity to respond, and allow the Company to come to a fair and impartial decision on the matter concerned.”

Clause 24.4 provides that,

“…strict observance of the procedure may not be appropriate in all cases.  Circumstances may warrant that the procedure is abridged or varied and the Company reserves the right to do so at any time.”

From the evidence of the complainant, it is apparent that, although the owner had concerns about his conduct, he decided not to invoke the disciplinary procedure, but offered him the option of resigning instead.  The emails submitted by the complainant indicate that the owner thought that a disciplinary investigation could be supplanted by the unusual approach of simply not paying the complainant the wages to which he was entitled.

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides that, to ground a complaint under the Act, wages must be properly payable:

(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’s evidence has not been rebutted, and his account of what occurred is supported by the correspondence from the respondent dated May 31st 2025.  I find therefore that, in breach of section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, wages equivalent to €2,957.50 which were properly payable to the complainant have not been paid.  This amount is comprised of €1,980.00 for four weeks’ work at 33 hours x €15.00 per hour plus €977.50 for coaching classes. 

Holidays Due at Termination of Employment

In addition to wages, the complainant was entitled to pay for holidays that he didn’t take when his employment ended on May 30th 2025.

In accordance with s.19(1)(c) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, as a part-time worker between October 2024 and January 31st 2025, the complainant was entitled to 8% of the hours he worked as time off for annual leave.  The timesheets and bank statements he produced at the hearing show that, during that period, he worked on a part-time basis for 409.5 hours.  He was therefore entitled to 32.8 hours’ annual leave, resulting in wages due of €492.00 (32.8 x €15). 

From February 1st until May 31st 2025, the complainant was a full-time employee, working a regular shift of 33 hours per week.  Although his contract provided that he was entitled to 30 days’ holidays, in accordance with s.19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, he had a statutory entitlement to 20 days per year.  Between February and May 2025, he worked for four months and he was therefore entitled to 6.6 days’ annual leave.  In his evidence at the hearing, he said that he took two days holidays in May, leaving him with an outstanding entitlement to 4.6 days.  I estimate this to be equivalent to wages of €455.40 (6.6 hours per day x 4.6 days x €15.00 per hour).

Conclusion

I am satisfied that the respondent had an opportunity to attend the hearing on December 5th 2025 to rebut the complainant’s evidence that he received no wages for the month of May 2025, and that he wasn’t paid for holidays not taken at the termination of his employment.  Based on the evidence, I have concluded that wages and holiday pay amounting to €3,904.90 which were properly payable were not paid, resulting in an illegal deduction from the complainant’s wages.

I am satisfied also that the complainant did not resign, but that he was dismissed.  In accordance with s.4(2)(a) of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, he was entitled to one week’s notice.  As he was not given any notice, he is entitled to pay in lieu of notice.

I decide that this complaint is well founded.  In respect of redress, in accordance with section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (as amended), I am required to direct the respondent to pay compensation as a net amount.  I estimate that no tax would have been due on wages of €3,904.90 and that combined deductions for PRSI and USC would have been in the region 5%.  Therefore, in respect of unpaid wages and holiday pay, I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €3,700.00.

In relation to pay in lieu of notice, I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €495.00, equivalent to one week’s pay.  In accordance with s.192A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, as this award is for a breach of a statutory right, it is not subject to deductions.

The total amount of compensation of €4,195.00 is not subject to any further deductions.

Wages, holiday pay, pay in lieu of notice