ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057216

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Julie Aspin	Bluewave Taverns Limited T/A Fagans [amended at consent at hearing]

Representatives

Self-Represented

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00069575-001	26/02/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/07/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. The hearing was conducted in person in Lansdowne House.

While the parties are named in the Decision, I will refer to Ms Julie Aspin as “the Complainant” and to Bluewave Taverns Limited T/A Fagans as “the Respondent.”

The Complainant attended the hearing and she presented as a litigant in person. Mr Martin Hardiman General Manager and Mr Liam Healy Accountant attended on behalf of the Respondent company.

I explained the procedural changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. An Adjudication Officer, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 in April 2021. No application was made that the hearing be conducted other than in public. The parties agreed to proceed in the knowledge that a decision issuing from the WRC would disclose identities. There was no requirement to administer an oath or affirmation as there was no contest as to the material facts.

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 under statute. I can confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into this complaint.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Complainant confirmed at close of hearing that she had been provided with the opportunity to say everything she wanted to say.

Background:

This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 26/02/2025 as a complaint submitted under section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 alleging contravention of the statute on the termination of the Complainant’s employment with the Respondent.

The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 18/07/2025.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 09/09/2024 and the position held was that of cleaner until such time as her employment was terminated by way of dismissal on 14/02/2025.

The Complainant worked 18 hours per week for which she received payment of €13.75 gross per hour.

The Complainant claims she did not receive minimum notice of the termination of the contract of employment from the Respondent.

The Respondent submits the Complainant was paid one week’s notice and at hearing opened the supporting pay slip in support of this position.

There were no submissions provided and the Complainant relied on the narrative in her WRC complaint form as set out hereunder.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

CA-00069575-001

I was in hospital on the 7th of February because I done my back in, I had sent a text message to Carl that I could not come into work and within an hour I was sent to A & E by my doctor in which I was in there from 8 o’clock in the morning until 3.30pm and I have a note of the doctor saying that I was unfit for work for 3 days so it meant Saturday Monday and Tuesday I was covered for. I went back to work on the 12th of February I was told by someone that my job might be on the line so on the Friday which was the 14th my manager came in and I asked him if I could have a word and he said yeah so we went into his office and I just said to him could you tell me if my job was on the line and he said yeah that we are letting you go today that its just not working out and he didn’t give me a reason. [SIC]

The Complainant at hearing submits that it is not about the money and accepts that she did receive the money but that she wanted to work her notice and she submits she wanted to work that week.

The Complainant submits she never read her contract and she did not receive a copy. The Complainant verifies her signature on the contract which was opened to the hearing by the Respondent.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

CA-00069575-001

The Respondent submits the Complainant was paid her notice and she was not required to work it after she was dismissed during her probation period. The Respondent opened the Complainant’s contract of employment to the hearing containing the operative probation clause.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00069575-001

This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

In conducting my investigation and in reaching my decision, I deemed it necessary to make my own inquiries into the complaint during hearing to establish and understand the facts and to seek clarification on certain matters.

The Relevant Law

Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 (“the 1973 Act”) sets out the minimum notice period as follows:

“(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be

(a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week,

(b) – (e) not relevant

The Relevant Facts

It is not in dispute that the Complainant had 22 weeks’ service with the Respondent and she was entitled to one week’s notice on termination of employment.

It became apparent at hearing that the Complainant has many issues she wished to ventilate regarding her employment with the Respondent and in particular with the manner in which the employment relationship ended.

However, as explained to the Complainant at hearing my jurisdiction is confined to the specific complaint as presented under the 1973 Act as that is the sole complaint properly before me at hearing.

It is not in dispute the Complainant received payment for her notice period and she did not have to work.

It is well established that an employer may choose to pay an employee for his or her notice period without that employee having to work. This is known as payment in lieu of notice generally referred to as PILON.

Accordingly, I am satisfied there has been no breach of the 1973 Act and I find this complaint as presented to be not well-founded.

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.

CA-00069575-001

For the reasons outlined above, I decide this complaint as presented is not well-founded.

Dated: 18/08/25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Key Words:

Payment in lieu of notice;