CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 41 OF THE WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015 ACT
This Order corrects the original Decision ADJ-00060006 issued on 16/12/25 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060006
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Brian Heelan | Sodexo |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
| Grainne Moran NFP, an Aon company |
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-00073067-001 | 02/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/12/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
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. Parties were advised in advance of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted. The hearing was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Where submissions from parties were received they were exchanged. The complainant did not attend and for the respondent Ms Regina Flavin HR BP attended
Background:
The complainant had submitted that he did not receive pay. The complainant did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing. In his complaint form the complainant submitted that he did not receive the appropriate payment in lieu of notice on termination of his employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that all monies owed had been paid. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the complainant on 02/07/2025 alleging contravention of the Acts. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held 11/12/2025 and there was no appearance by the complainant and Ms Regina Flavin attended for the respondent. I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and did not attend.
In all the circumstances, I find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint. |
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.
In all the circumstances I find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint. |
Dated: 16-12-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Payment of wages, complainant did not attend |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060006
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Brian Heelan | Sodexo |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
| James Condon NFP, an Aon company |
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-00073067-001 | 02/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/12/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
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. Parties were advised in advance of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted. The hearing was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Where submissions from parties were received they were exchanged. The complainant did not attend and for the respondent Ms Regina Flavin HR BP attended
Background:
The complainant had submitted that he did not receive pay. The complainant did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing. In his complaint form the complainant submitted that he did not receive the appropriate payment in lieu of notice on termination of his employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that all monies owed had been paid. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the complainant on 02/07/2025 alleging contravention of the Acts. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held 11/12/2025 and there was no appearance by the complainant and no appearance by the respondent. I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and did not attend.
In all the circumstances, I find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint. |
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.
In all the circumstances I find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint. |
Dated: 16-12-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Payment of wages, complainant did not attend |