Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Giuseppe  Tota

Shanahan’s on the Green

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Non-attendance

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-00068804-001

23/01/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant gave his evidence under affirmation.  The respondent did not attend the hearing. The hearing notification was issued to the respondent on 28 February 2025.  The hearing started after a short pause to allow the respondent to make contact with the WRC, however none was made, and the hearing proceeded.

The complainant submitted that he was not paid wages and monies that were due to him for his untaken holidays and for his notice period.  He submitted copies of this wages slip and other documentation received from his employer.

The complainant explained that there was a typo in his original complaint form that would have given the impression that the matter was out of time, however he provided documentary evidence to support the timeframe of his complaint.

The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter.

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act deals with interpretations and states the following in regard to the definition of wages under the Act:

"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:

Provided however that the following payments shall not be regarded as wages for the purposes of this definition:

(i) any payment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment,

(ii) any payment by way of a pension, allowance or gratuity in connection with the death, or the retirement or resignation from his employment, of the employee or as compensation for loss of office,

(iii) any payment referable to the employee's redundancy,

(iv) any payment to the employee otherwise than in his capacity as an employee,

(v) any payment in kind or benefit in kind,

(vi) any payment by way of tips or gratuities.

The complainant provided the final payslip that he received to the hearing.  It outlines that his basic salary is €408 and gave evidence that they always worked one lunch shift per week and were paid €55 for that shift.  He also outlined that the remainder of his pay was accounted for by service charges and tips and gratuities.  Tips and gratuities are specifically mentioned in the Payment of Wages Act as not amounting to wages, however the service charge is not specifically excluded.  In the case of the complainant the service charge amounts to €217.31.  Therefore, I find that his wages, for the purposes of the Act, amount to €680.31.

The complainant gave his evidence under affirmation and provided supporting documentary evidence where possible.  He also was very forthcoming as regards his recall or otherwise of matters.  Accordingly, I found him to be a credible witness.

As regards the wages due to him for his final week in employment, I calculate the amount owing to him under the Act as €680.31. 

The witness notes that he could not recall how may holidays were outstanding and despite additional questioning was unable to put a figure on the number of days annual leave that he had taken.  In the circumstances, I am not in a position to make a finding regarding unpaid annual leave days.

As for the lack of notice paid to the complainant upon his termination, he gave credible evidence regarding the duration of his employment.  As he was employed for more than two years, he is entitled to notice of two weeks wages.  In accordance with the above calculations, he is therefore entitled to €1360.62 for the unpaid notice outlined in (b) above.

Having considered the evidence presented to me, I find that the complaint is well founded, that the act was contravened, and that the complainant is owed €2,040.93 wages calculated in accordance with the Payment of Wages Act.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that complaint is well founded and that the Act was contravened.  I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €2,040.93 less any lawful deductions which I consider to be reasonable in the circumstances.

Payment of Wages Act – well founded – contravention of the Act – Award of compensation