Moeez Ahmadv Gorey Automotive Solutions [2025]
Decision Number: ADJ-00057272 Legal Body: Workplace Relations Commission
Published on: 19/08/2025
Issues Covered:
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Patrick Barrett BL Barrister-at-Law
Patrick Barrett BL Barrister-at-Law
Patrick barrett case reviews

The Bar of Ireland

Orchard Way, Killarney V93Y9W9.
DX: 51010 Killarney 
Tel: (087) 4361270

Patrick's legal education is robust, beginning with a BCL Law Degree from University College Cork (2012-2016), followed by an LL.M in Business Law from the same institution (2016-2017), and culminating in a Barrister-at-Law Degree from The Honorable Society of King’s Inns in Dublin (2019-2021). He has extensive experience on the South-West Circuit, handling Civil, Family, and Criminal Law cases, as well as advising the Citizen Advice Service.  He has worked as an employment consultant, dealing with workplace investigations and bankruptcy procedures.

Complainant:
Moeez Ahmad
Respondent:
Gorey Automotive Solutions
Summary

Employer was ordered to pay unpaid wages after failing to register an apprentice and unlawfully withholding pay below the national minimum wage.

Background

The Complainant claimed unpaid wages for work carried out between 30 September 2024 and 6 January 2025 at the Respondent’s garage. He had initially done unpaid work experience at the Respondent’s home in July 2024, but when later offered work at the garage and an apprenticeship opportunity, he did not agree to work without pay. The Complainant worked 59 days, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., expecting to be registered as an apprentice. He was told by the Respondent that payment would only be made after apprenticeship registration and that the initial period was considered unpaid trial work.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant had initially sought work experience which led to discussions about an apprenticeship. It was agreed that the Complainant would be paid in cash until registered with SOLAS, after which he would receive the apprentice rate. Around October 2024, the Respondent applied for SOLAS registration, but misdirected forms caused delays. A SOLAS training advisor later visited and advised on registration requirements. The Respondent accepted wages were due but disputed payment at the national minimum wage, insisting only the apprentice rate applied. The Respondent intended to backpay at that rate. When the Complainant demanded minimum wage, the relationship ended.

Outcome

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant was employed under a contract of employment and entitled to the national minimum wage, as he was never registered as an apprentice with SOLAS. The Respondent’s reliance on an apprentice rate of €4.75 per hour had no lawful basis. Although there may have been an intention to register as an apprentice, this did not occur, and any delays or issues with SOLAS were irrelevant. As no wages were paid for the period 30 September 2024 to 6 January 2025, this amounted to an unlawful deduction under section 5(6)(b) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Adjudicator directed the Respondent to pay the complainant €5,418.00 gross.

Practical Guidance

Employers should:

  • Ensure that all workers engaged under a contract of employment are paid in full and at the correct lawful rate from the outset. If the intention is to employ someone as an apprentice, the registration process with SOLAS or the relevant authority must be completed promptly and confirmed in writing before applying any apprentice pay rates. 
     
  • Paying a reduced rate on the assumption that apprenticeship registration will occur later creates a significant legal risk, as national minimum wage laws will apply unless formal apprenticeship status exists. Clear written agreements and proper documentation should be in place before work commences, specifying the pay rate, hours, and terms. 
     
  • Finally, wages must be issued promptly and in accordance with the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Any non-payment or underpayment can be treated as an unlawful deduction and may result in significant awards. Employers should maintain accurate records to evidence compliance.


The full case can be found here.

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 19/08/2025
Conducting Workplace Investigations and Alternative Conflict Resolution Methods
Online
Discipline
Grievance and Dispute Resolution
Popular
Events
Phishing Awareness at Work
All Staff
Data Protection and GDPR
Popular
eLearning Course
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →