ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00039392

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Ciaran Cullinan	Richard Fitzgerald Fitzgerald Electrical Services

Representatives

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

The hearing was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant did not attend. Parties were advised for the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, and that this decision would not be anonymised and there was no objection to same.

Parties were also advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination is permitted. Where submissions were received, they were exchanged. Evidence was taken under oath from the Respondent Mr Richard Fitzgerald.

Complaints:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015	CA-00049479-001	29/03/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946	CA-00049479-002	29/03/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00049479-003	29/03/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005	CA-00049479-008	29/03/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00049479-009	29/03/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00049479-011	29/03/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00049479-012	29/03/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00049479-013	29/03/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00049479-014	29/03/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00049479-015	29/03/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00049479-016	29/03/2022

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/03/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle

Background:

The complainant submits in his complaint form that he has various complaints against the respondent including failures to pay him relevant monies, holidays, notice, penalization and minimum notice.

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00049479-001

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The complainant submitted on his complaint form that he did not receive the minimum rate of pay sat out in a Sectoral Employment Order (SEO).

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00049479-001

Mr Fitzgerald the respondent gave evidence and denied the complaint.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00049479-001

A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the complainant on 29/3/22 alleging contravention of the Acts. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held on 31/03/2023 and there was no appearance by the complainant. I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and did not attend.

The complainant submitted on his complaint form that he did not receive the minimum rate of pay sat out in a Sectoral Employment Order (SEO). The respondent under affirmation denied the complaint.

In reaching my conclusion I have carefully evaluated the evidence adduced and take account of submissions made and I note that the complainant did not attend the hearing. In the circumstances, I do not find the complaint well founded.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00049479-002

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The complainant submitted on his claim form that he did not receive paid holidays/annual leave entitlement as set out in an Employment Regulation Order (ERO).

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00049479-002

Mr Fitzgerald the respondent gave evidence and denied the complaint.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00049479-002

The complainant submitted on his claim form that he did not receive paid holidays/annual leave entitlement as set out in an Employment Regulation Order (ERO). The respondent under affirmation denied the complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00049479-003

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The complainant submits on his claim form that he did not receive a statement in writing on his terms of employment.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00049479-003

Mr Fitzgerald the respondent gave evidence and denied the complaint.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00049479-003

The complainant submits on his claim form that he did not receive a statement in writing on his terms of employment. The respondent under affirmation denied the complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00049479-008

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The complainant submits on his claim form that he was penalised for complying with or making a complaint under Safety, Health Welfare at Work Act.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00049479-008

Mr Fitzgerald the respondent gave evidence and denied the complaint.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00049479-008

The complainant submits on his claim form that he was penalised for complying with or making a complaint under Safety, Health Welfare at Work Act. The respondent under affirmation denied the complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00049479-009

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The complainant submits on his claim form that he did not receive his minimum notice on termination of employment.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00049479-009

Mr Fitzgerald the respondent gave evidence and denied the complaint.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00049479-009

The complainant submits on his claim form that he did not receive his minimum notice on termination of employment. The respondent under affirmation denied the complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00049479-011

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The complainant submits on his claim form that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from his wages.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00049479-011

Mr Fitzgerald the respondent gave evidence and denied the complaint.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00049479-011

The complainant submits on his claim form that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from his wages. The respondent under affirmation denied the complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00049479-012

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The complainant submits on his claim for that the respondent has not paid him or has paid less than the amount due to the complainant.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00049479-012

Mr Fitzgerald the respondent gave evidence and denied the complaint.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00049479-012

The complainant submits on his claim for that the respondent has not paid him or has paid less than the amount due to the complainant. The respondent under affirmation denied the complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00049479-013

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The complainant submits on the claim form that the complainant did not receive appropriate payment in lieu of termination of employment.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00049479-013

Mr Fitzgerald the respondent gave evidence and denied the complaint.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00049479-013

The complainant submits on the claim form that the complainant did not receive appropriate payment in lieu of termination of employment. The respondent under affirmation denied the complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00049479-014

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The complainant submits on his claim form that he did not receive his holidays/annual leave entitlement.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00049479-014

Mr Fitzgerald the respondent gave evidence and denied the complaint.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00049479-014

The complainant submits on his claim form that he did not receive his holidays/annual leave entitlement. The respondent under affirmation denied the complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00049479-015

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The complainant submits on his claim form that he was not compensated for loss of annual leave entitlement on leaving.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00049479-015

Mr Fitzgerald the respondent gave evidence and denied the complaint.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00049479-015

The complainant submits on his claim form that he was not compensated for loss of annual leave entitlement on leaving. The respondent under affirmation denied the complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00049479-016

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The complainant submits on his claim form that he was not compensated for the loss of public holidays on leaving.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00049479-016

Mr Fitzgerald the respondent gave evidence and denied the complaint.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00049479-016

The complainant submits on his claim form that he was not compensated for the loss of public holidays on leaving. The respondent under affirmation denied the complaint.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

In reaching my conclusion I have carefully evaluated the evidence adduced and take account of submissions made and I note that the complainant did not attend the hearing. In all the aforementioned circumstances:

CA-00049479-001

I do not find the complaint well founded.

CA-00049479-002

I do not find the complaint well founded.

CA-00049479-003

I do not find the complaint well founded.

CA-00049479-008

I do not find the complaint well founded.

CA-00049479-009

I find the Act was not contravened.

CA-00049479-011

I do not find the complaint well founded.

CA-00049479-012

I do not find the complaint well founded.

CA-00049479-013

I do not find the complaint well founded.

CA-00049479-014

I do not find the complaint well founded.

CA-00049479-015

I do not find the complaint well founded.

CA-00049479-016

I do not find the complaint well founded.

Dated: 27th April 2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle

Key Words:

Pay, annual leave, minimum notice, penalisation, complainant did not attend, public holidays,