ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056819
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Gheorghe Danescu | Jms International Holdings Ltd t/a Shanahans On The Green |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaints:
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-00069080-001 | 05/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00069080-002 | 05/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00069080-003 | 05/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/06/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 or such other Act as might be referred to in the 2015 Act, to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I am bound to fulfil my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or dispute.
I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing as well as any written submissions disclosed in advance of the hearing.
The Complainant herein has brought three separate complaints of employer contravention of separate Acts contained in Schedule 5 aforesaid.
The Complainant referred a matter for adjudication as provided for under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 and the referral has been made within six months of the date on which this claim accrued to the Complainant. In particular the complaint is that the Employee did not receive the appropriate Statutory Minimum notice (or payment in lieu) on termination of the employment and as outlined in Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973.
Where the Adjudicator finds that the section was contravened by the Employer in relation to the Employee who presented the complaint, the Adjudication officer can direct that the employer concerned pay to the Employee compensation for any loss sustained by the Employee by reason of the contravention.
The Act requires a minimum period of notice to terminate the employment of an employee who has been employed for a qualifying period. In this instance the Complainant has worked in excess of fifteen years and was therefore entitled to 8 weeks’ notice of termination or payment in lieu.
The Complainant has brought a further complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is also an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015.
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 a 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. The Complainant asserts that he was not paid for the final week that he worked.
Finally, the Complainant herein has referred a complaint of a contravention of The Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and in particular to a contravention under Section 19 of the Act which sets out those circumstances which give rise to annual leave entitlements. So that an Employee becomes entitled to Annual leave equal to 4 weeks in a leave year in which the Employee has worked 1365 or more.
Pursuant to Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (as amended), a decision of an adjudication officer as provided for under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act shall do one or more of the following:
- (i) Declare the complaint was or was not well founded;
- (ii) Require the Employer to comply with the relevant provision;
- (iii) Require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances but not exceeding 2 years remuneration.
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 5th of February 2025. 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 was a chef who worked from 2005 to 2024 in the Respondent restaurant. 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 a copy of the last payslip received which showed his Gross earnings and related to a period some two weeks before the restaurant in which he was working closed down. 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 15th of April 2025 - and sent to the business address of the Company. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant gave evidence concerning his employment and I note that eh Complainant worked a regular 39-hour week with the Respondent with a gross salary of €730.00. The Restaurant closed unexpectedly with no notice given and no final payment of monies due on cessation of employment. None of the Complainant’s evidence was contradicted and I found the Complainant to be a forthright witness giving credible evidence. In circumstances where the restaurant operated one week in arrears the Complainant was owed a full week of remuneration when the restaurant closed down. I additionally find that the Complainant was owed accrued annual leave of 7 days when the restaurant shut down at the end of October 2024. The Complainant gave evidence that he had already used up to ten days annual leave in the year. The Complainant was not given notice and was not paid in lieu. The Complainant was entitled to eight weeks remuneration when the employment ceased. |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00069080-001 – The complaint herein is well founded, and I direct the Respondent does pay compensation to the Complainant in the sum of €730.00 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 CA-00069080-002 - The complainant herein is well founded, and I direct that the Respondent does pay compensation to the Complainant in the sum of €5,840.00 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00069080-003 – The complainant herein is well founded, and I direct that eh Respondent does pay to the complainant compensation in the amount of €700.00 |
Dated: 06-08-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|