ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056113
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jack Kelly | JMS International Holdings t/a Shanahan's On The Green |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00068356-001 | 30/12/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/06/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
The Complainant has brought a complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 and where such a complaint is presented, the Director General is empowered to refer that complaint forward for adjudication by an Adjudication Officer pursuant to Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. Following the said referral,it is incumbent on the assigned Adjudicator to make all relevant enquiries into the complaint. This will include hearing oral evidence, considering submissions made and receiving other relevant evidence.
In particular, the Complainant herein has referred the following complaint:
A complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.
By way of preliminary observation, I am satisfied that a Contract of Employment existed between the parties such that a wage defined by the 1991 Act was payable to the Employee by the Employer in connection with the employment. I further find that the Complainant’s Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 30th of December 2024 was submitted within the time allowed.
Background:
This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.
The Specific Details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 30th of December 2024. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. The Complainant gave an oral account of his evidence which was in line with what had previously been set out in the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant asserts that he is owed remuneration for his last week of work which immediately preceded the abrupt closure of the restaurant on the 13th of October 2024. The Complainant provided me with the Contract of Employment under which he was working. Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 23rd of April 2025 - and sent to the business address of the Company. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the Complainant herein. The Complainant had not been working very long as a barman with the Respondent restaurant when the restaurant closed down where, by reason of financial difficulties, it could not continue to operate. The Complainant had worked for four full days prior to the termination of his employment. He was not paid for these days, and his salary remains due and owing. The Complainant’s rate of pay is €120.00 per day |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00068356-001 – The complaint herein is well founded, and I direct that the Employer does pay to the Employee the sum of €480.00.
|
Dated: 05/08/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|