Latest news with #PaymentofWagesAct1991
RTÉ News
3 days ago
- Business
- RTÉ News
Man called 'dog' by boss awarded €8,000 in unpaid wages at WRC
A worker who said his ex-boss slashed his rostered hours down to just one day a week and got "abusive" with him at a meeting has won nearly €8,000 in unpaid wages and compensation. Craig O'Brien told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that businessman Zemari Jalilzad "berated" him in front of multiple colleagues at a meeting last September when he objected to the cut in hours, telling him: "Who are you? You are nothing, you are a dog." The company then failed to send him his wages for the month of September on payday the following week, he said The employment tribunal has found Mr Jalilzad's wholesaling company, Jalilzad Electronics Ltd, in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 on foot of complaints by Mr O'Brien, in a decision published today. After nobody representing the company dialled in for scheduled hearings by videoconference in May and July this year, the WRC heard the complaints in the absence of the respondent. Mr O'Brien, who was represented by David Lane of McGroddy Brennan Solicitors in the case, had "many years' experience in the retail and wholesale trade", in particular with household products, toys and seasonal stock, the tribunal noted. The complainant told the tribunal he met Mr Jalilzad when the businessman came to buy up stock during the liquidation of his former employer. Mr Jalilzad had asked him at that stage to join him in establishing his business, he said. Employer 'upset' and 'losing faith' He prepared sales forecasts and a business plan, which Mr Jalilzad agreed to finance, he said. He then travelled to China on behalf of Mr Jalilzad to visit manufacturers of Halloween-related products with a view to supplying these to the Irish retail trade, he said. In May 2024, he joined the company as general manager, on a salary of €50,000 per annum, he said. He proceeded to set up a showroom in Dundalk for retailers to see stock, hired a website administrator, prepared a list of suppliers, and managed to pre-sell stock worth €150,000 to shops, he said. Mr O'Brien said it became clear that "things wouldn't work out" as Mr Jalilzad "insisted" on using a different supplier and "refused to budge" on this. The complainant said the said the product range, price and quality from this supplier "wasn't what customers wanted" and "not what he built the [sales] forecast around". However, Mr Jalilzad "refused to pay deposits to the factories" and the stock Mr O'Brien had pre-sold was never delivered, leaving him to explain matters to the customers, the complainant said. Mr O'Brien said his employer was "upset" about the failing sales figures and customers were "losing faith". He was "constantly on the road trying to fix problems" in July and August 2024 arising from "communications issues with order picking", he said. He told the tribunal he wrote to his employer outlining the problems with the business on 15 September last year, also expressing concerns about the company's finances. The complainant alleged that when he raised a concern on 25 September that the website administrator hadn't been paid, Mr Jalilzad "shouted abuse" at him over the phone. 'You are nothing, you are a dog' On 30 September, Mr O'Brien said he met with the website administrator, Mr Jalilzad, an associate named Imam Jalil, and the businessman's brother in an attempt to "resolve" matters. He said there was a "cool start" to the meeting before Mr Jalilzad "became abusive" and told him that with immediate effect he was "only required to work one day a week". Mr O'Brien said he challenged Mr Jalilzad's right to change his terms of employment "without discussion", upon which Mr Jalilzad "berated" him and said: "Who are you? You are nothing, you are a dog." The businessman sent him a letter later that day cutting his working week from five days to one day a week as a "temporary change". Mr O'Brien's payslip for September arrived on 1 October, recording gross wages of €4,166.66, but "no money was transferred", Mr O'Brien told the WRC. When he wrote looking for the wages, Mr Jalil replied by email stating: "Please let us know if you are available to work one day a week," the tribunal was told. Mr O'Brien said he heard nothing from the firm about what duties he was to perform. Wages 'unlawfully deducted' Mr O'Brien said his employment ended on 31 October when it "became clear" the managing director wasn't going to pay his wages or have "any contact" with him. In her decision, adjudicator Catherine Byrne said it was "entirely unacceptable" that the company had failed to consult Mr O'Brien about the cut to his hours and decided on it without his agreement, the company was not in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 in that regard. She also found there was "no requirement" for pay in lieu of notice in circumstances where the complainant – who had just six months' service at the time - considered himself to have been "constructively dismissed" due to his employer's conduct. However, Ms Byrne ruled that the company was nevertheless liable for Mr O'Brien's wages for both September and October 2024, and ordered it to pay him €3,078.86 in tax-free compensation for both months, based on the net value of his full-time wages for the period. The wages had been "unlawfully deducted" in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, she ruled. She also found Mr O'Brien had been deprived of eight days' accrued annual leave in breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, awarding him a further €1,731.60 in compensation.
RTÉ News
4 days ago
- Automotive
- RTÉ News
Unregistered apprentice mechanic denied pay wins order for €5,000 in wages
A motor garage which put an unregistered apprentice mechanic to work for three months without wages has been directed to pay him €5,418 after failing to successfully argue it was entitled to pay him less than two-fifths of the minimum wage. The worker, Moeez Ahmad, secured the award on foot of a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 after the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) rejected the position of his employer, Gorey Automotive Services, that it only owed him €4.75 an hour for the three months he spent working there. At a hearing last month, Mr Ahmad told the tribunal he did some unpaid work experience at the garage in July 2024 and went on to take up full-time employment on 30 September. He said was that he worked 9am to 6pm for 59 days between 30 September 2024 and 6 January 2025, but "was not paid for the hours worked". He said his employer told him he "would get paid when he was registered as an apprentice" but not for the "trial period". Adnan Farooq, who appeared on behalf of the respondent, told the WRC the deal with Mr Ahmad was that he "would be paid cash up until the time he was registered as an apprentice with SOLAS" at the apprentice rate of pay. Mr Farooq said the appropriate rate for an apprentice motor mechanic was €190 a week – and that he "would not have hired [Mr Ahmad]" if it meant paying minimum wage, but rather "someone with experience". He added that the business intended to "backpay the complainant at the apprentice rate" and that the parties had "parted ways" when Mr Ahmad sought the national minimum wage. The tribunal heard the garage applied to register with SOLAS in October that year, and that an advisor from the State training agency visited the workplace to advise on requirements. However, Mr Farooq stated that the registration forms were "misdirected in the post", causing a delay to Mr Ahmad's registration. Mr Farooq said he accepted that the business owed Mr Ahmad wages, but did not agree they were payable at the national minimum wage – outlining to the tribunal that it intended to pay the complainant his back wages at the apprentice rate. In her decision on the case, adjudicator Kara Turner noted that it was "common case that there were no wages paid" to Mr Ahmad from 30 September 2024 to 6 January 2025. She noted the garage's position that an apprentice motor mechanic was paid €190 a week for a five-day week working 9am to 6pm with an hour of unpaid breaks during the day. "This equates to €4.75 per hour," she wrote. The minimum wage applicable to Mr Ahmad, according to his age, was €11.43 an hour up to the end of 2024, and rose to €12.15 in 2025, she added. Ms Turner wrote that while the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 exempted apprentices, Mr Ahmad had not been registered as one. She added that any issue about the exchange of registration forms with SOLAS was "immaterial". "The real issue is that I can find no lawful basis to support the respondent's position that an hourly pay rate of €4.75, or other apprentice rate of pay, was the properly payable rate," she wrote. She found that Mr Ahmad was entitled to the national minimum wage applicable to his age for his time in employment with the garage, awarding him €5,418 in compensation on that basis.
Irish Independent
21-07-2025
- Irish Independent
‘You may as well be out on the main street' – WRC hearing abandoned as adjudicator says witness can't testify from moving train
A Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator has abandoned an employment rights hearing today after deciding it was not 'satisfactory' that a defence witness had dialled in from a moving train. The South East Technological University Student Union (SETUSU) is subject to a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 by worker Kate Rellis, which was called on for hearing earlier via videoconference, but quickly adjourned.
RTÉ News
07-07-2025
- Business
- RTÉ News
Group of staff at Shanahan's on the Green left short nearly €35,000
A group of staff at Dublin restaurant Shanahan's on the Green were left short nearly €35,000 when it shut abruptly last year, a tribunal has found. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has heard multiple statutory complaints from former employees of its operator, JMS International Holdings since the closure of the prominent restaurant and has made awards to six workers to date. There had been a promise to staff that Shanahan's would get back in business and pay what it owed to the workers, a waiter told the tribunal last month. "These plans never came into fruition," he said. In each case, the workers - who include chefs, front-of-house staff and the company's long-standing bookkeeper - have told the employment tribunal the company failed to pay them any wages for their last week at work. Six workers, each with more than a decade's service, gave evidence to WRC adjudication officers that they received no notice of termination in circumstances where they were entitled to six to eight weeks each. Waiting staff said that as well as being denied their last week's wages and other statutory entitlements, they were also left without their tips when the restaurant closed. The tribunal heard that when tips and service charges were accounted for, some senior waiters at Shanahans were making €1,000 a week or more while working full-time hours. 'He didn't tell us anything' "It was left to the manager to inform us what was happening, he didn't tell us anything. The company shut down; I was left a week without pay – there was also unpaid tips and service charges," waiter David Byrne told the WRC last month. Mr Byrne, who had only started four weeks before the closure, said Shanahan's "shut down quite quickly". "We were told the Sunday night, and from there, it was just shut down. We were emailed, we were told everything would be sorted out, that he had plans to open up again and get everyone paid. These plans never came into fruition." Mr Byrne was due no statutory redundancy or notice pay due to his short service, but said he had not been paid for three shifts in his last week in the employment. Adjudication officer Conor Stokes found the restaurant's management breached the Payment of Wages Act 1991 by failing to pay Mr Byrne the €360 he was owed for working three dinner shifts. Mr Stokes also found Mr Byrne's split of the service charges for that week, €74.80, along with €47.63 in tips, was not paid out in a further breach of the Payment of Wages Act on the part of the restaurant. The total awarded to Mr Byrne was €684.93. Left 'in the lurch' The restaurant was coming up on its 25th anniversary when staff were informed that it had ceased trading. Five workers have secured orders for statutory notice on the basis of working there over a decade. Waiter Luke Carragher was awarded €3,300 for unpaid wages and holiday pay. Paul Harte, another waiter, an employee of Shanahan's since 2006, won €9,855, comprising a week's gross pay and eight weeks' notice. Assistant manager Angelo Lamberti, who was earning €1,200 a week, including tips and gratuities, won €5,280 for unpaid notice pay, wages and holiday entitlements. Chef Piotr Fraszczyk won €5,950 and bookkeeper Kathleen Friel won €9,855 on the same basis. The total awards made against JMS International Holdings by the WRC to date now stand at €34,992.93. The restaurant's management has not attended any of the cases decided by the WRC to date. One of the longest-serving staff is chef Gheorge Danescu, whose case was also heard last adjudicator Penelope McGrath told him: "I have met a number of your colleagues at this stage. You were all let go without any explanation in October of last year. It was a difficult situation, undoubtedly." "19 years," Mr Danescu said, adding: "They've been like a family." "I can see from the tone of the emails he [the owner] sent that he had a good rapport with his staff, but he did leave you in the lurch," Ms McGrath said. She noted that there was an email from the owner "stating that Revenue had frozen the bank accounts and he was going to go back to the States and attempt to raise funds". "You were given no notice, because that was effectively your last day of work," she added. The WRC's decision on Mr Danescu's complaints has yet to be published. The chef's wife asked Ms McGrath at the hearing: "Who's going to pay the money?" Ms McGrath said: "Some monies can be claimed through the social insurance fund. You need to talk to your colleagues; I can't give you legal advice [but] it's not without hope." "It won't be from the respondent. The status of the respondent would be known to the [Department of Social Protection]," she added.
RTÉ News
29-05-2025
- Business
- RTÉ News
Filipino swim coaches win back thousands in docked wages after promise of 'a better life in Ireland' dashed
Three swimming instructors who were recruited from the Philippines to teach in Ireland only to have hundreds of euro a week docked off their wages for "training costs" before being let go have won their pay back. It's after the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found there was "no evidence" to back up a claim by the operator of a swim school that it had spent €3,000 to train each of the workers. One of their former colleagues told the WRC she was hired on the promise of "a better life in Ireland" only to be "forced" into taking a pay cut out of fear of dismissal. They were among a group of six Filipino instructors to pursue rights claims against the unidentified swim school, which were heard in Ennis, Co Clare, in November and December last year. Five of the workers have now secured nearly €12,000 for breaches of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, while an allied claim by the sixth has yet to be published by the WRC. All of the workers are Filipino nationals – the company's legal representative explaining that it was "the first European company to obtain a work permit for Filipinos as swimming instructors". Two of the six instructors started work for the swim school in June 2022 and four more instructors were recruited in the Philippines in August 2022 and brought to Ireland in January 2023, the WRC heard. However, within months of securing work visas and flying in the new instructors, the management of the school moved to shed staff, citing "financial reasons" for terminating the employment of three of the new hires during their probationary periods. They were identified only as Mr B, Ms R and Ms M in the WRC decisions. The employer's position was that it had conducted "intensive" training with the newer instructors for the first three or four weeks they were in Ireland which had enhanced their skills, and paid each of them throughout that period, while making no income from them. The owner of the swimming school, delivered the training personally, and provided employees with "instructional videos", the workers told the WRC. The employer's position was that this had cost €3,000 to provide. Andrea Montanelli of Peninsula Business Services, who appeared for the employer in the case, said the company had "highly invested" in bringing the workers from the Phillipines, "paying for their work permits, for the visa, flights etc". She submitted that a total of €1,692.38 was taken from three of the workers' last four pay packets in "instalments" of €641.45, €497.97, €276.48 and €276.48. The company relied on a training agreement and a deductions from pay agreement signed by the three new hires in the Phillipines in August 2022 as the basis for taking the "instalments". Under questioning from Elaine Davern-Wiseman BL, who acted for the group of workers instructed by Martina Murphy Solicitors, the workers explained that these agreements were provided to them in English, without a translation to Tagalog provided, and that they signed them without having an opportunity to take legal advice. The workers each said they were already qualified swimming instructors when they were recruited, and that the only training they had was in how to teach swimming lessons "the [company] way". Unpaid hours A fourth instructor, Ms S, who was among the new hires in January 2023, remained an employee of the company at the time of the hearings last year. The tribunal heard the employer asked the remaining staff to take a pay cut of €100 a week for 16 weeks between June and September 2023. Ms S told the WRC in her complaint form: "I was employed on the promise of €576 per week and [the] chance of a better life in Ireland. This [was] not true. I was forced to sign a contract reducing my wages," she said. Ms Montanelli submitted that the company was "encountering financial difficulties" and that Ms S and other staff members "accepted the proposal" that they take reduced wages. Ms S's evidence was that she signed a document to that effect – but "was not aware that she could refuse to sign", the tribunal noted. She believed she "had to sign it as others in similar roles had recently had their employment terminated" and "feared that a refusal to sign the agreement would result in the termination of her employment". Ms S's evidence was that she did not have the chance to take legal advice or have the matter explained in her native language. Adjudicator Orla Jones wrote that the employer "did not provide any evidence to support the claim" that the training for the three new hires actually cost the business €3,000 each. It could not rely on the agreements signed in the Philippines by the workers when they did not have the benefit of legal advice or an interpreter, she added. She noted in her decision that the wording of the training costs agreement was that €3,000 referred to charging €3,000 to each worker if they were to "leave" the employment. Ms Jones wrote that each of the workers had their jobs terminated and had not chosen to leave. She awarded Mr B, Ms R and Ms M €2,307.68 each, comprising three weeks' unpaid wages each and a further week's notice pay, in respect of the wages docked for the purported training costs. Ms Jones ruled that the €1,600 docked from Ms A's wages between June and September was an "illegal" deduction and ordered the employer to pay her back the sum. She also awarded Ms A €1,626.90 for time she spent doing administration without pay. A fifth instructor, Ms F, who had stayed on until her one-year contract ran out 28 June 2023, also secured €1,789.59 for working unpaid hours doing administration. To date, the swim academy has been directed to pay €11,939.53 to the group of workers. The names of the company and the employees were anonymised in WRC decisions published this week because they were linked to parallel proceedings under the Industrial Relations Act 1969, which must be heard in private.
