ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00059929
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Annamaria Pozsonyi | Happiez Ltd. Other Retail Sale In Non-Specialised Stores |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Did not appear and was not represented |
Complaint(s):
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-00072535-001 | 18/06/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/12/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
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.
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 matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The attending parties were put under notice that their evidence would be heard under oath or affirmation and of the penalty for perjury. Additionally, they were informed that the hearing was to be held in public; they offered me neither objection nor reason to have the hearing held in private. Accordingly, the witness was advised of the penalty for perjury and witnesses made an affirmation to be truthful with the Commission.
In attendance were the Complainant and Mr Gyorgy Pozsonyi. Ms Pozsonyi gave evidence under affirmation. No other witnesses were produced.
In coming to my decision, I have fully considered the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties, and the written and oral submissions on behalf of the attending parties.
I have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held
“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”.
I am required to set out ‘such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision’ per MacMenamin J. in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute.
Having waited for the Respondent to appear and having satisfied myself that I had heard all the evidence available, the hearing was formally closed.
Background:
The Complainant set out that they worked for the Respondent on two separate days on a casual basis and have not been paid for these. There being no response from the Respondent to the notification from the Commission, the Case Officer made attempts to contact the Respondent party. No communication could be completed. Having reviewed the CRO website and there is nothing to indicate that the Respondent is no longer trading. On the morning of the hearing, I allowed an additional 20 minutes for the Respondent to appear before opening the hearing, the Respondent has still not appeared at the closing of the hearing 20 minutes later. I am satisfied that the Respondent is correctly on notice the notice of hearing being sent to the correct trading address as per the CRO. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
It is the case of the Complainant that they worked for the Respondent on May 28 (8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.) and May 31 (9:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.). No formal contract was reduced to writing; however, the work was undertaken in good faith, and all tasks were completed as requested. In accordance with standard labour practices in Ireland, payment is due for services rendered regardless of the existence of a written contract. The Complainant is seeking that the outstanding wages be processed without further delay. The amount of wages properly payable and outstanding is €195.75 |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having been cautioned as to the penalty for giving false evidence to the Commission, the Complainant was put under oath affirmation and confirmed that the contents of the Complaint form were correct and true. That she had worked for the Respondent and was not paid the sum agreed. The amount properly payable to the Complainant of €195.75 For noting of the parties not in attendance, a contract need not be reduced to writing to be enforceable. The evidence of the Complainant on their affirmation was undisputed, and I can only conclude in the absence of contrary evidence that the Respondent has failed to pay the properly payable amount of €195.75 to the Complainant |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is well founded. The Respondent party is directed to pay the complainant €195.75 in respect of outstanding wages |
Dated: 08/12/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
Key Words:
|