Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Karen  Gaffrey

Starglazing Ltd

Representatives

  Self-Represented

 Jason Delaney, Owner

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-00073479-001

16/07/2025

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 and a witness for the respondent gave their evidence under affirmation.  Cross examination was facilitated but not availed of.

The complainant submitted that she was dismissed from her employment without notification.  She submitted that she was entitled to two weeks’ notice.  She stated that she received a payslip in the net amount of €1275.45 but did not receive any funds thereafter.

The respondent submitted that the complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct.  He confirmed that he did not provide any documentation to her regarding her dismissal.  He confirmed that he did not have any written employee handbook or policy documents.

He confirmed that the company accountant issued the complainant with the payslip as provided by the complainant but noted that this was done in error.

The complainant submitted that her employment was terminated with immediate effect.  She stated that she was issued with a payslip which was not honoured.  The respondent confirmed that he dismissed the complainant with immediate effect but stated that he dismissed her for gross misconduct and therefore she was not entitled to any notice period.  He confirmed that he issued her with no paperwork whatsoever regarding her dismissal and did not have any written employment handbook or employment policies.  He stated that she was sent the payslip by the company accountant in error.

The final payslip issued to the complainant was submitted prior to the hearing.  It should noted that that according to the payslip, the complainant was entitled to payment for two shifts that she had undertaken during the final employment period.  It also indicated that she was entitled to payment of notice period.

Having regard to the outline of events put forward by the respondent, he has not proven that she was dismissed for gross misconduct.  He did not provide her with any documentation relating to the purported dismissal. In addition, the complainant was owed money for more than just a notice payment as itemised on the payslip.

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act defies wages as follows:

"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:

Section 5(6) of the Act states as follows:

(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.

Given the absence of paperwork on the part of the employer, I find that €1,275.45 was properly payable to the complainant under the only available paperwork, i.e., the payslip.   Accordingly, I find that the Act was breached, and that the complainant was entitled to be paid the amount outstanding of €,1275.45. 

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that complaint is well founded, and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €1,275.45 which I consider to be reasonable in all the circumstances.

Payment of Wages – payslip issued – payment withheld – contravention of Act – compensation awarded