Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055227

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Anton Leka	Best Guard Security Limited ,Bgss

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Self

Did not attend

Complaint:

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-00067288-001	11/11/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/03/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

The parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.

The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.

While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Mr Anton Leka as “the Complainant” and to Best Guard Security Limited as “the Respondent.” Mr Leka attended the hearing and gave evidence on affirmation. He was accompanied by a friend, Mr George Pirvu.

The hearing was scheduled for 11/03/2025. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

I am satisfied that the Respondent was issued with a letter on 12/11/2024 advising them of the date, time and venue of the hearing. The letter was sent to the Respondent’s business address and was not returned as undelivered.

In order to exercise a significant amount of caution I allowed a period of time to elapse before commencing the hearing . There was no further communication received from or on behalf of the Respondent to indicate why they did not attend.

The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing and the documents requested from the complainant post hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.

Background:

The Complainant is employed as a security officer by the Respondent. He commenced employment with another company in October 2018 and he is not sure if the company was taken over by the Respondent or if the Respondent changed its name.

The Complainant submitted a complaint that he was not paid for two months despite receiving a pay slip and the method of payment was changed from Bank transfer to Cheque but he did not receive any cheque.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant works as a security officer on a part-time basis. He does not have a contract of employment. He gave evidence that when he rings or emails the Respondent’s office he does not get any response. The Complainant submits that he was not paid for any of the hours he worked in December 2024 and January 2025. He has received a pay slip but the method of payment now says “Cheque” but no cheque was received. He was not notified of this change. The Complainant provided a copy of his pay slip to confirm this change.

The Complainant submits that he is due to be paid for 85 hours for months of December 2024 and January 2025 and his hourly rate is €14.50. This means that he is due €1,232.50 for December 2024 and €1,232.50 for January 2025.

The Complainant gave evidence that because he was not paid he had to borrow money to pay rent and provide for his family. He is now due to repay this money and the Respondent has made no effort to pay his outstanding wages. There was no reason given for not paying him either through a bank transfer or cheque.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The hearing was scheduled for 11/03/2025. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

I am satisfied that the Respondent was issued with a letter on 12/11/2024 advising then of the date, time and venue of the hearing. The letter was sent to the Respondent’s registered business address and was not returned as undelivered.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00067288-001: The Payment of Wages Act 1991 defines employee as “a person who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment…” The Act notes that the term “contract” applies “whether the contract is express or implied and if express, whether it is oral or in writing.”

The Act defines “wages” in relation to an employee: “means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including –

(a) Any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and

(b) Any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice..”

Based on the uncontested evidence I find that the Complainant was employed by the Respondent at the dates outlined. There is no dispute in relation to the amount of wages due and I conclude that the Complainant is due the sum of €1,232.50 for December 2024 and €1,232.50 for January 2025 as gross pay.

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.

CA-00067288-001 : I find that the complaint is well founded and I award the Complainant the sum of €2,465.00 gross in wages. I order the Respondent to pay this amount within 42 days of the date of this decision.

Dated: 26.03.2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Key Words:

Wages not paid.