Valid immigration permission made the withheld wages payable.

The Complainant, a structural engineer, stated that his Irish Residence Permit expired while he was visiting South Africa, preventing his return on 7 January 2026. The Respondent obtained a Critical Skills Employment Permit for him, and he received a long-stay D visa. He re-entered Ireland on 8 February, when an immigration officer granted him permission to enter and remain for employment, and he applied to register that permission the following day. He attended work on 10 February but was sent home and placed on unpaid leave pending production of an IRP card. He argued that an IRP card merely evidenced immigration permission and was not its legal source. An immigration officer, NASC and an immigration solicitor had supported his position. He supplied the Respondent with his visa, entry stamp, employment permit and registration confirmation. Maintaining that he was ready, willing and entitled to work, he claimed €5,932.20 in unpaid wages.

The Respondent maintained that it acted lawfully by preventing the Complainant from working until he produced an IRP card. His card had expired on 6 January 2026 and he had not applied for renewal beforehand. Relying on Department of Justice guidance, it argued that the concession allowing continued employment while an application was processed applied only where renewal had been sought before permission expired. The Complainant was regarded as out of permission and unable to work. It obtained advice from the CIÉ Solicitors Department. A WRC inspection had required it to produce valid immigration documentation, including IRP cards. It rejected the argument that the Complainant had obtained fresh permission, contending that this would bypass renewal requirements. He remained employed on unpaid leave until a replacement card issued. Consequently, no wages had been properly payable during the disputed period.

The Adjudicating Officer determined whether wages were properly payable. Although the Respondent’s caution was reasonable, that was not the statutory question. He accepted the distinction between immigration permission and the registration or recording of that permission. The Department’s renewal guidance did not govern the Complainant, who had obtained fresh permission through a Critical Skills Employment Permit, long-stay D visa and admission by an immigration officer. His application on 9 February registered that permission rather than continuing the expired permission. Supported by confirmation from immigration personnel and NASC, the evidence established that he was entitled to work from 10 February and was ready, willing and available. As the Respondent retained him in employment but prevented him from working, wages were payable. Their withholding was unauthorised and constituted an unlawful deduction. The complaint was upheld, with €2,909.44 awarded for the nineteen days from 10 to 28 February.

Employers should:

• Monitor immigration expiry dates and engage with employees before permissions lapse. Policies should distinguish between an employee’s underlying permission to reside and work and the IRP card recording that permission. A blanket requirement for a physical card may be unsafe where alternative documentation establishes an entitlement.     
  
  
• Obtain advice addressing the employee’s precise circumstances rather than relying solely on general renewal guidance. The employer should identify what further verification is required, communicate that clearly and review the position without delay.
  
  
• Determine whether the employee remained ready and legally entitled to work and whether withholding pay was authorised by statute, contract or written consent. Genuine concern may explain an initial pause but will not defeat a Payment of Wages claim once entitlement is established. 
  

The full case can be found here.