Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Noelia Ucha

Derglee Taverns Ltd t/a Brogan’s Bar & Restaurant

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-00071567-001

14/05/2025

The complainant worked as a chef de partie at the respondent’s bar and restaurant.

The complaint referred to the Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 referred to a deduction on 20 April 2025 relating to the cost of a work permit.

The complainant clarified at the outset of the hearing that there was an error in the amount of the deduction detailed in the complaint form and that the correct amount was €525.47.

The complainant was employed with the respondent from 1 July 2022 until 19 April 2025.  The complainant gave oral notice of resignation on 4 April 2025, confirmed by email on 7 April 2025.  This met the requisite minimum notice of termination under the complainant’s contract of employment.

The respondent failed to pay the complainant for the final week of work.  When the complainant queried the missing payment, the response was that the complainant owed the respondent the cost of her employment permit and that her final salary had been withheld to cover it.

There was no basis for the respondent making the complainant liable for the cost of the employment permit, and it is unlawful for an employer to seek reimbursement from an employee for the cost of an employment permit.

The complainant sought an investigation of her complaint, payment of the full amount owed for the last week of work in April 2025 and an acknowledgement that the demand for repayment of the work permit cost is unlawful and must be withdrawn.

The complainant submitted a payslip for week 16, ending 20 April 2025, recording nil payment.  The complainant also submitted copy of her emails with Mr Sutton prior to referral of her complaint to the Commission in relation to the matter of her final week’s pay, and in which the complainant raised a concern about deduction of the cost of a work permit.  

The respondent made a payment to the complainant in week 20 (week ending 18 May 2025) of €230.77 gross.  This payment was calculated based on weekly pay of €576.92, less prepaid holidays (3 days) valued at €346.15.   

By way of submissions received in advance of the hearing, the respondent advised it was not seeking any permit fee and confirmed that no money is due or sought in relation to permit costs.

The respondent provided its review of holiday pay records in respect of the period 2023 to 2025 which it submitted showed an overpayment to the complainant of 4 days.  The 4 days of annual leave taken but not accrued by the complainant ought to have been recovered in the week 20 payment to the complainant; 3 days were recovered.

Supporting documentation submitted included payslips and a written statement in respect of the complainant’s terms of employment.

It was submitted that the respondent had sought in good faith to rectify this matter with the complainant.

The complaint referred was of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, as amended, (the “1991 Act”) in respect of a deduction of €525.47 from wages on 20 April 2025.  The complainant’s employment with the respondent ended on 19 April 2025.  The payslip for the complainant’s last week in work, week 16, week ending 20 April 2025, showed a nil payment.  

Initial communications from the respondent in response to the complainant’s query about wages for this week referred to an amount owed in respect of the complainant’s permit fee. 

The complainant sought the full amount in wages for the last week she worked in April 2025 and an acknowledgement that the demand for repayment of the work permit cost was unlawful.

In a communication of 19 May 2025 to the Commission, the respondent advised that it was making payment to the complainant for the week in question, with a deduction for ‘prepaid holidays’.  The respondent clarified to the Commission in September 2025 that it was not seeking any permit fee, in full or in part.  

My adjudication is concerned with whether there was a deduction from the complainant’s wages in respect of the week ending 20 April 2025 in contravention of the 1991 Act.

Application of the Law

Section 5 of the 1991 Act prohibits deductions from wages save in certain specified circumstances. 

Section 5(6) of the 1991 Act provides as follows:-

“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.”

It is well established that ‘properly payable’ as per section 5(6) of the 1991 Act means sums to which an employee is properly entitled.  I am further satisfied that properly payable wages mean payment of those wages to which an employee is properly entitled at the time they fall due for payment.  

For the avoidance of any doubt, there was no lawful basis for the respondent deducting the cost of an employment permit, or associated fees, from the complainant’s wages.

A payment to the complainant of €230.77 gross was processed in the pay period for week 20 on 20 May 2025.  The payslip for week 20 recorded the complainant’s gross weekly wages as €576.92 with a deduction of €346.15 for ‘holidays prepaid’.

I have very carefully reviewed the documentation submitted in this case and in particular the written statement of terms of employment and the respondent’s annual leave records for the complainant. 

It was established at the hearing that ‘holidays prepaid’ referred to paid annual leave taken by the complainant in excess of that which she had accrued at the date of termination of employment.  The respondent operated a leave year of January to December and the complainant’s annual leave entitlement was 20 days per annum.  Initially the complainant submitted that she did not receive paid annual leave however the complainant subsequently accepted, on a review of the respondent’s records, that she received paid annual leave in 2024.  The respondent relied on an overpayments clause in the written statement of terms of employment for the complainant which stated:-

“Any overpayments made, either in error or as a result of changed circumstances, must be repaid.”

I have considered section 5(5) of the 1991 Act which provides for deductions for overpayment as follows:-

 “Nothing in this section applies to—

(a) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee, or any payment received from an employee by an employer, where—

(i) the purpose of the deduction or payment is the reimbursement of the employer in respect of—

(I) any overpayment of wages, or

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

made (for any reason) by the employer to the employee, and

(ii) the amount of the deduction or payment does not exceed the amount of the overpayment, …”

As the definition of ‘wages’ in section 1 of the 1991 Act includes holiday pay referable to employment, and having regard to the payslips for 2025 which record 12 days paid annual leave, which payslips were not disputed, and the complainant’s contractual pro-rata leave year entitlement of 20 days, I find that the complainant was overpaid wages (holiday pay) in the period 1 January to 19 April 2025.  I am further satisfied that the deduction amount of €346.15, equating to 3 days’ pay, did not exceed the amount of the overpayment and that the deduction therefore falls within section 5(5) of the 1991 Act.

In conclusion, I find that the total amount of wages properly payable to the complainant for the week ending 20 April 2025 was €230.77 gross. 

I further find that the previously mentioned wages fell due for payment to the complainant on 25 April 2025 and that the nil payment on 25 April 2025 was a deduction contrary to section 5 of the 1991 Act.  I therefore find that the complaint is well founded.

In accordance with section 6 of the 1991 Act, I direct €100.00 compensation which I consider reasonable in circumstances where the respondent processed payment to the complainant of €230.77 gross on 25 May 2025.

For the reasons set out above, my decision is that the complaint is well founded and I direct the respondent pay to the complainant compensation of €100.00.

Payment of Wages Act 1991 – Properly payable – Annual leave - Overpayment