Construction Sector Worker Breaches Equal Award

The Complainant had worked as a plasterer for the Respondent since 2019 and remained employed (though he was on certified sick leave at the time of the hearing). He stated that he had been offered a net wage of €600 per week on commencement and that he later received a €50 increase in October 2020 but he did not receive payslips. He said he asked about a pension in 2021 and was told he had no entitlement. In early 2025, he was laid off for 2 weeks. After discovering discrepancies between his pay and the figures returned to Revenue, he consulted his own accountant, who identified issues. A meeting in April 2025 with the Respondent’s accountant did not resolve these concerns. Following that meeting, he felt isolated, had the company van removed, and believed he was penalised for invoking his statutory entitlements.

The Respondent did not meaningfully engage with the Workplace Relations Commission process. No written submission addressing the complaints was introduced by the Respondent beyond confirmation of attendance. On the hearing date, a person appeared but was unable to answer questions, respond to the allegations, or represent the Respondent’s interests in any substantive manner. As a result, the Complainant’s evidence went effectively unchallenged. The Respondent did not provide payroll records, pension or sick pay documentation, or evidence of compliance. Nor did it offer an alternative explanation for the pay discrepancies identified by the accountant. The Respondent thereby allowed the hearing to proceed on the basis of largely uncontested evidence from the Complainant.

The Adjudicating Officer first confirmed that the cognisable period ran from 3 November 2024 to 2 May 2025. Several duplicate complaints had been withdrawn. The uncontested evidence showed that the Complainant had never received a written statement of terms or core terms, contrary to the 1994 Act. These complaints were upheld with compensation of €3,460 and a direction to issue proper terms. The Adjudicator found that the Complainant, as a craftsperson, fell within the construction Sectoral Employment Orders and that the Respondent had failed to put in place the required pension, sick pay and death in service arrangements. This SEO complaint was upheld and €10,000 compensation awarded. The Adjudicator also found that the Complainant was paid below the minimum hourly rate under the 2023 SEO and awarded €3,500. The penalisation complaint under s.20 of the 2015 Act was not upheld.

Employers should:

1. If in the construction sector, understand that Sectoral Employment Orders create binding minimum standards, not optional guidelines. Where workers fall within an SEO, employers are required to ensure that pay rates, pension, sick pay and death in service benefits all complied with those statutory terms. Proper payroll records and clear payslips are expected to be maintained.
2. Comply fully with the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. This means that core terms are provided within five days and full written terms within the statutory timeframe. Relying on verbal arrangements or informal understandings leaves employers exposed.
3. When employees raise concerns about pay, statutory entitlements, or SEOs, employers are expected to respond constructively and transparently rather than defensively or dismissively. Early engagement with payroll advisers and open explanation of calculations reduce conflict. Non-engagement with the WRC process, or sending an unbriefed representative, typically results in uncontested evidence being accepted.
   

The full case can be found here.