ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052931
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | David Lawson | Panache Hospitality Ltd |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Non-Appearance |
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-00064819-001 | 17/07/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/11/2024 & 17/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses present. The legal perils of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
The issue of anonymisation in the published finding of the WRC was considered by the Parties but not deemed necessary.
The delay between hearings was occasioned by the need to clarify the correct business Name and Address of the Complainant.
The name used in this case was identified from CRO records (supplied in evidence) and information gathered by the Complainant from Sports Centre records.
Background:
The Complainant was a Hospitality/ Staff Manger at a Restaurant in a National Sports and Science Centre. The Employment began on the 31st January 2024 and ended on the 4th March 2024. The issue in contention was the alleged Non-Payment of Wages to the Complainant.
The rate of pay was stated, by the Complainant, to have been €14.50 per hour. Hours were variable.
|
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was self-represented. He gave an Oral Testimony supported by written copies of e mail correspondence. His case was that he had been recruited in late January 2024 and had worked at the employment for the month of February 2024. He had never been paid. A sum of €3,360.38 was due to him. He supported this figure with whatever records were held by himself personally. Numerous promises, from the Respondent, to pay were made but none came to fruition. The Adjudication Officer, reminded him that he was under Sworn Oath/Affirmation and questioned him thoroughly on his claim. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Despite being fully notified of the Time, Date and place of the Oral Hearing the Respondent failed to appear. No evidence was given to rebut the Complainant case. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
3:1 Legal Position Section 6 of the Payment of wages Act, 1991 is relevant. Complaint to adjudication officer under section 41 of Workplace Relations Act 2015 6. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of [section 4C or 5] as respects a deduction made by an employer [from the wages or tips or gratuities] of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding— (a) the net amount of the wages, or tip or gratuity as the case may be (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that— (i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or (ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,
Accordingly, under the Terms of the Act, as set out above, the Complaint has to be deemed Well Founded.
Put simply, on Sworn Evidence, no wages were paid to the Complainant. The Complainant presented as a competent Manager.
The sum of €3,360.38 is awarded (subject to normal statutory deductions) to the Complainant.
|
4: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991, requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
CA: -00064819-001
The Complaint is Well Founded.
An award of €3,360.38 is awarded (subject to normal statutory deductions) to the Complainant.
Dated: 17/12/25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Payment of Wages, Non-Payment. |