Wages were owed despite missing payroll documentation.

The Complainant applied for work with the Respondent after seeing a vacancy notice in the shop window. She attended the premises, undertook training, and later worked in the shop. She stated that she had not been given a written contract or formal statement of terms and had been told that training would be unpaid. She maintained that she was later asked to work alone and was told she would be paid €12.50 per hour in cash for those hours only. When she queried payment, she was told that she would not be paid unless she provided a passport or PPS number, which she said had not been explained beforehand. The Complainant accepted that she had received €75 but argued that a further €75 remained outstanding. She submitted that the Respondent had unlawfully withheld wages for work already performed and sought payment of the balance due.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant had attended the shop seeking work and had later been invited for an interview. The manager said she had explained the shop rules, opening and closing procedures, and invited the Complainant to complete a one-hour trial because she had no previous retail experience. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant had been asked to provide identification, a PPS number, and proof of address so that she could be registered properly on payroll. It said the Complainant later worked additional hours alongside staff but did not provide the required documents despite requests. The Respondent denied refusing to pay wages and said payment had to be processed lawfully through payroll, not in cash. The owner authorised payment of €75 and said the balance would be paid once the necessary documentation was provided. The Respondent argued that the outstanding payment had not been withheld unlawfully but awaited payroll compliance.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the complaint under the Payment of Wages Act was well founded. It was accepted that the Complainant had performed work for the Respondent and that the total amount due for that work was €150. The Respondent had already paid €75, leaving an uncontested balance of €75 outstanding. The Adjudicator accepted that employers may reasonably require identification, PPS details, and other documents for PAYE and legal compliance. However, the Adjudicator held that such due diligence should have been completed before the Complainant was allowed to work. Having permitted her to work, the Respondent could not then withhold payment because the documents had not been provided. The Adjudicator also stated that it was never correct to say that a person should not be paid for training days. The Complainant had performed her side of the bargain and was entitled to be paid the remaining €75.

Employers should:

• Complete right-to-work, age verification, PPS, payroll, and identity checks before allowing any person to begin work, training, or a trial shift. Where documentation is required for tax, payroll, or legal compliance, this should be explained clearly before the person starts. 
  
• Be cautious about unpaid trials and unpaid training. Where a person performs work of value for the business, particularly where they attend the workplace, carry out duties, or work alongside staff, payment obligations are likely to arise. Any trial period should be short, clearly defined, genuinely observational or assessment-based, and documented. 
  
• Ensure that wages are processed lawfully and on time. Payment through payroll is best practice, but payroll difficulties do not remove the obligation to pay for work done. Small businesses should have simple onboarding checklists, written trial arrangements, and clear wage records to avoid disputes. 
  

The full case can be found here.