Salesman 'deceived by false promises' over unpaid wages wins €27,000 at WRC
A tech firm has been ordered to pay over €27,000 in wages illegally withheld from a salesman who told a tribunal he was 'consistently deceived by false promises' to pay him.
In a decision published on Monday the
Workplace Relations Commission
(WRC) decided to redact the identity of the video company to 'encourage' it to 'bring the matter to a close without adverse publicity'.
It follows a statutory complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 by the salesman, who resigned last year with the company owing him some five months' salary and commission.
The salesman joined the company in April 2023 on a contract which paid a base salary of €75,000 and commission of up to €55,000 annually.
READ MORE
The tribunal heard difficulties first arose when his wages were not paid in November 2023, but that this was rectified the following month.
There was further non-payment in January and February 2024, the salesman told a hearing earlier this month, and in March, that he had 'less than half' his normal salary payment. His salary did come in April that year, but went unpaid in May and June 2024, he told the WRC.
Bobby Healy on why Manna drone delivery could be the 'biggest technology company in the world for its space'
Listen |
67:08
In July 2024, the salesman handed in notice of resignation effective 30 August, 2024. When he left on that date, he was owed €19,450 in salary and €7,979 in commission, net of tax and statutory deductions, the tribunal heard.
The salesman presented the WRC with emails and WhatsApp messages he exchanged with senior executives in the company, all of whom had confirmed to him that he was owed the money, he said.
The company had been able to pay him two months' wages prior to his resignation after applying for a loan in August 2024, the tribunal noted.
Around 10 weeks after the claimant left, he had an email from the CEO confirming that half of the outstanding sum would be 'available by the end of the week' and that the rest would be 'available in December [2024]'.
WRC adjudicator Catherine Byrne noted that when the case was first called on in April 2025, the salesman 'agreed to an adjournment when his former employer indicated that they would shortly be in funds'.
When the salesman's case was heard earlier this month, he showed Ms Byrne correspondence from May 2025 in which an executive at the firm stated that the company was about to draw down funds which would allow it to pay him.
'However, no money was transferred to the complainant,' she said.
The salesman told the WRC in a submission that he had suffered 'stress and inconvenience' because of the failure to pay the wages he was owed. He had spent an 'inordinate amount of time writing to various managers' and had been 'consistently deceived by false promises', he added.
Adjudication officer Catherine Byrne decided to anonymise her decision on the case 'to encourage the [company] to bring the matter to a close without adverse publicity'.
Ms Byrne wrote in her decision: 'It is extremely regrettable that the complainant had to spend so much time and energy trying to exert his basic entitlement to be paid his wages, an issue about which there is no dispute.'
The company had made an 'illegal deduction' from the claimant's wages by failing to pay him the €27,429 owed to him when he resigned on 30 August last year, she found.
Upholding the complaint, Ms Byrne directed the company to pay the salesman the sum as compensation under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Teacher and SNA resign from Dublin school over alleged ‘harassment' by parents for wearing keffiyeh scarves
Two staff members at a primary school in Dublin resigned after claiming they were 'harassed and bullied' by parents for wearing keffiyeh scarves, T-shirts and a tattoo in support of Palestine . The man and woman, a teacher and a special needs assistant (SNA), expressed disappointment with the school's handling of the issue, claiming a small group of parents were 'allowed to harass and bully with impunity'. The pair said they handed in their resignation this month and are due to cease employment in August. They claimed they were asked to stop wearing keffiyeh scarves at work following complaints from parents who accused them of 'blatant anti-Semitism' and 'psychologically abusive behaviour'. One parent also allegedly complained about a T-shirt worn by the SNA that, the parent said, bore a 'watermelon covering the full state of Israel ' and about a tattoo on the male teacher's arm 'with the pre-1967 borders of my country, which is interpreted by many as a call for the annihilation of my people'. READ MORE In a complaint seen by The Irish Times, the parent claimed the SNA's T-shirt 'promotes the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel'. The teacher said he had been wearing a keffiyeh to work since he began teaching at the school in September. Following initial complaints over the scarf, he claimed, he was told to remove it while on school premises in a decision made by the school's board of management. Despite this, he said he continued to wear the keffiyeh and claimed his photo was subsequently taken on multiple occasions by a parent, which he described as 'extremely intimidating'. 'It's been so stressful and so deeply upsetting. We go home every day and we have a live-streamed genocide on our phones along with the fact that we were being harassed and bullied by this small group,' the teacher said. The SNA claimed that on one occasion earlier this month, a parent confronted her over the clothing while another 'shouted' at her in an encounter she described as 'intimidating and distressing'. 'I just couldn't continue to work there,' she said, adding that she raised a grievance with the school, though is 'incredibly disappointed' by the response. While saying staff should not be seen taking sides in times of war and conflict, she claimed, 'this isn't a war or a conflict, it's apartheid, genocide and ethnic cleansing, and if you're not taking a side, you have taken a side'. Both say they exhausted 'every avenue' with the school in an attempt to resolve the issue, including calls for a dress code, which they say is not currently in place. The issue was raised with Tánaiste Simon Harris in the Dáil on Thursday by People Before Profit TD Paul Murphy, who claimed the staff members were 'pressured by school management' not to wear the keffiyeh scarves. 'When Russia invaded Ukraine, schools organised shows of solidarity with Ukraine. But when it comes to Israel's genocidal war on Gaza, some teachers are being silenced, and their clothing choices are being policed,' he claimed. In response, the Tánaiste said: 'There should always be a very high bar before you interfere with anybody's clothing', adding that he would discuss the matter with the Minister for Education. In a statement, the school's board of management said it 'places the welfare and education of the children at the centre of all decisions'. 'As a diverse and equality-based school community, including children, families and staff from over 40 nationalities, the board is committed to ensuring that all actions taken are respectful, inclusive and welcoming to every child and family. 'The board will not be commenting on any individual staff matter, in line with its responsibilities as an employer,' it said.
Irish Times
11 hours ago
- Irish Times
Is it worth my while to give half my inheritance to my husband to avoid tax?
I just want to confirm my understanding of the position around deed of variation/family arrangement with wills in Ireland. I am due to inherit €30,000 from my brother-in-law and I am wondering if it is worth my while to gift my husband half, in order to avoid tax ? Ms C.L. When someone draws up a will, they generally have two things in mind. First, they want to take care of those closest and dearest to them; second, they want to minimise how much of their estate gets taken in tax. READ MORE There's an industry of lawyers and tax advisers making a very good living servicing this demand – as evidenced by last week's article about wealthy individuals in Ireland buying farmland to avail of an inheritance tax loophole while it lasts. This can be a game of cat and mouse. New reliefs are introduced, advisers notice they can be used entirely legitimately but not in the way the Government originally intended to benefit their (generally) wealthy clients and, over time, amendments are brought in to try to restore the measure to its original purpose. But what you are talking about is a much longer established structure called a deed of variation, otherwise known as a deed of family arrangement. Anyone who has been in the UK might be more familiar with it as, in that jurisdiction, it can be a very useful way of effectively rewriting someone's will – at least in relation to any inheritance you are in line to receive – to take account of changed circumstances, such as the arrival of children, grandchildren or in-laws since the will was originally drafted. It can also be used in intestacy where the absence of a will might mean, for instance, that a cohabiting partner could otherwise be left with nothing. [ Wills and spouses: Why you cannot just cut a wife out of your will Opens in new window ] In the UK, such a deed of variation must be in writing and must be signed within two years of the original benefactor dying. One of the advantages is that rather than being seen as you inheriting and then passing some of that benefit onwards, the benefit you allocate to anyone else under such a deed is considered as coming to them directly from the person who has died. So what does that mean for you? Well, while there is a lot of similarity between the law here and in the UK due to our shared heritage, there are some significant differences too, not least in relation to inheritance. For instance, while, in the UK, the tax liability is on the estate of the dead person, in Ireland, the liability rests with the individual beneficiaries depending on the amount involved and the beneficiary's relationship with the dead person. In-laws are considered as 'strangers' in terms of inheritance. As such, they come under the lowest category C tax-free threshold And there is a key difference of approach also when it comes to deeds of variation. While there is nothing stopping you exercising a deed of variation to gift your husband half of what you are inheriting from your brother-in-law, it will have no impact on your tax liability. In Ireland, as Revenue has confirmed for me, as far as liability for Capital Acquisitions Tax (CAT or inheritance tax) is concerned, you will be considered to have taken the full €30,000 inheritance from your brother-in-law with your husband being seen as taking a subsequent €15,000 gift from you. Now, in practical terms, that raises no tax bill for your husband as gifts and inheritances between spouses are exempt from inheritance. But it could have tax implications for the recipient of your largesse if you were looking to have a friend benefit, for instance. And it does mean you will face a tax bill. In-laws are considered as 'strangers' in terms of inheritance. As such, they come under the lowest category C tax-free threshold – currently €20,000. So you will face a 33 per cent tax bill on at least €10,000 of this inheritance – €3,300. It could be more if, as would not be unusual, you previously received an inheritance – or, indeed a gift of more than €3,000 in one year – from a friend, in-law, cousin or more distant relation. They all come under category C and that €20,000 tax-free limit is a lifetime one extending back to cover any inheritance or large gift received since December 5th, 1991. That leaves you with two choices: you can accept the inheritance and pay the tax due on anything over your tax-free threshold, or you can disclaim the inheritance. However, that second option is an all or nothing one. You cannot just disclaim €10,000 of the €30,000 so that you stay within your tax-free limit. You will be giving all of it up. Nor have you any right, if you disclaim, to influence where the inheritance goes. That will be determined by the wording of the will. The money would most likely go to other beneficiaries under a residuary clause – a clause governing the distribution of any assets not specifically allocated to any person or institution. The bottom line is that, if the intention is to reduce your tax bill, a deed of variation will not do it and, of course, you will have incurred legal costs in getting advice on and drawing up any such deed. Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street Dublin 2, or by email to with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice
Irish Times
11 hours ago
- Irish Times
Value of sanctions against Irish landlords for breaches reaches highest rate ever, RTB figures show
The value of sanctions against Irish landlords for breaches of rental law has grown to its highest rate ever, according to new figures released by the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB). In 2024, it published 75 sanctions with a total value of €238,299. This is almost four times higher in monetary value than what it gathered in 2023, at €64,360. In July 2019, the RTB was given new powers to investigate and sanction landlords who engage in breaches of rental law, known as improper conducts. The significant increase in the value of sanctions issued against landlords last year came amid renewed focus within the RTB investigations unit on a smaller group of landlords seen to be repeatedly breaching rental laws. READ MORE In a statement to The Irish Times, the RTB said the work 'involved detailed investigations into complex company structures and rental arrangements that were designed to avoid detection and enforcement of rental law'. 'It involved prolonged investigative work to access properties, serve legal documents and to find tenants who were willing to speak with the RTB's authorised officers,' the spokeswoman said in response to questions. 'These investigations into deliberate and repeated offenders saw the RTB's independent decision makers award higher levels of sanctions than previously seen,' the board said. Among those sanctioned in 2024 was Marc Godart and his company Green Label Ltd, with eight different sanctions amounting to a total of €26,100 in penalties for various breaches, including failure to register a tenancy. [ Under the eye of landlord Marc Godart: how a tenant who objected to CCTV surveillance was evicted Opens in new window ] Another notable case from 2024 was that of Anuj Katyal, who received a sanction of €15,000 for a failure to comply with rent pressure zone (RPZ) requirements at an address in Liffey Valley Park, Lucan, Co Dublin. Landlords John and Patricia Keeling also received a sanction of €15,000 for a failure to comply with RPZ requirements at an address in Derham Park, Balbriggan, Co Dublin. The RTB has published 36 sanctions to date in 2025 with a total value of €102,490, including its highest value single sanction yet on a Dublin-based landlord. Sweet Home Accommodation Ltd, run by Renato Passos, was fined €22,000 for a breach of rental laws at six city centre properties under his control. Investigators established he had failed to register 20 tenancies in properties on Leeson Street, Middle Abbey Street and Upper Abbey Street. During the course of its investigation the RTB discovered Brazilian students were being targeted through language schools and on social media about properties Mr Passos did not actually own but was sub-letting. Investigators found there was extensive overcrowding at multiple properties run by him, with bunk beds crammed into makeshift apartments, mattresses laid on floors and livingrooms converted into bedrooms. In one property, there were 15 people sharing one kitchen. Former tenant Julia Langneck, who lived at a property sublet by Mr Passos on Bolton Street in Dublin 1, told The Irish Times 'it was not really human at all, it was really terrible'. She detailed sharing a room with four other people, all in bunk beds, and paying almost €400 a month in rent. When the house became infested with bedbugs and the landlord asked for tenants to pay to have them removed, Julia decided to move out. However, Mr Passos withheld her deposit. This led to her taking a case against him with the RTB, which ordered him to pay the deposit and damages as part of its dispute resolutions process. The RTB subsequently began its own independent investigation into Mr Passos when media reports detailed serious overcrowding and unstable tenancies in properties he was leasing on Leeson Street. This investigation then led to the €22,000 sanction.
