A software developer who drained his savings and resorted to selling his photography equipment to cover his rent after going without his salary for six months has secured an order for of €46,664 in back pay.
Staff at fintech firm Digisure believe the company’s officers got locked out of its bank accounts after an alleged management dispute resulted in its chief financial officer being “forced out of the company”, the worker told the Workplace Relations Commission last month.
The tribunal was told that at one point last summer, staff were told a $30 million company bank balance was “frozen”, and in the weeks that followed, workers were given “interim cash” via Revolut by way of compensation – but that their salaries were never paid.
The worker, Daire Hardesty, has now secured a direction for the payment of more than six months’ back pay from Digisure (Ireland) Ltd in a ruling under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, published on Thursday by the WRC.
In his complaint, Mr Hardesty said he and his colleagues had heard “many contradicting statements” from their employer after Digisure failed to pay them for the first time on May 31st last year. While there had been “numerous” assurances of payment, “each time said date arrived and for days after, management were silent until eventually coming forward with another excuse”.
Mr Hardesty’s sworn evidence to the WRC was that there was “a dispute between the senior management resulting in the chief financial officer (CFO) being forced out of the company”, which caused difficulty because the CFO was “the named authorised person for the company bank accounts”.
The belief among Digisure staff was that the company “was having difficulty accessing its funds”, Mr Hardesty said.
At first the firm emailed staff to say there was “an issue with the bank processing system” which had delayed payroll on May 31st, 2024, but that it would be resolved in 72 hours, Mr Hardesty said. Despite a further assurance, they were not paid the following fortnight either, he said.
On June 18th the firm told staff by email that a transfer of $30 million into a company account had been held up by anti-money laundering measures, Mr Hardesty said. At that point, the firm assured workers they would be paid their salaries on the basis of a six-day week for all weeks in arrears, he said.
In the months that followed, Mr Hardesty told the tribunal, the company gave assurances that funds were being procured to meet the outstanding salary payments while the firm’s main funding remained out of reach.
An all-staff email in July 2024 stated that a “contingency plan” had been activated in which an investor had transferred stg£2 million to the firm’s Irish account, Mr Hardesty said. Later that month, workers were told a “bridging loan” was to be taken out to pay salaries.
Mr Hardesty’s evidence was that the company paid sums of between €300 and €1,000 as “interim cash” in July 2024. By late September 2024, he told the WRC, his “savings had been depleted”.
At that time, Digisure promised to pay the rent for his apartment in Dublin for the following month, Mr Hardesty said. When it failed to do so, he ended up using his credit card to pay his October rent, he said.
Mr Hardesty said he had to sell a €1,600 camera lens for €1,080 to cover his rent for November 2024, and was assured by the firm it would reimburse him.
On November 15th, the company wrote and said: “During this coming week a pay run will be done, and all back pay should be sorted.” Five days later, the firm put him on temporary lay-off until December 23rd that year.
Mr Hardesty’s evidence was that when he wrote to the firm seeking his pay arrears, he was told to “stop being disrespectful” and to wait for his salary “like everyone else”.
He told the tribunal the non-payment of wages by his employer had had caused him months of stress, required him to borrow money from family and friends, and “damaged several close friendships because the ‘guaranteed dates’ for getting paid given by the company always passed with no resolution”.
He said his life had been “completely shattered” and that even though he was living “extremely frugally”, he was facing a point where he would lose his apartment lease.
He was still on lay-off when he filed his WRC complaint on 16th December, but ended his employment in January 2025, the tribunal noted.
Adjudicator Patricia Owens wrote in her decision on the case that she would extend her jurisdiction beyond the usual six months as the company had first said there was a “banking error” holding up pay, and then “continued to provide assurances to the complainant and staff in general” all the way up to November 2024.
Ms Owens found on the basis of Mr Hardesty’s evidence on oath at hearing that the series of “interim payments” were “paid by the respondent as compensation for the delay in making payments”.
“I am satisfied, based on his oral evidence and on the basis of emails provided that the complainant was not paid the wages due to him from May 2024 until the termination of his employment in December 2024,” she wrote.
She noted the company “did not attend the hearing, did not make contact with the WRC to explain its non-attendance and did not submit any evidence”.
Ruling the complaint to be well founded, she directed the company to pay Mr Hardesty €46,664 in gross salary “without delay”.
