ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056102
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Emma Dillon | JMS International Holdings t/a Shanahan's on the Green |
Representatives | N/A | N/A |
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-00068275-001 | 20/12/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/05/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
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.
Background:
On 20 December 2024, the Complainant filed a Complaint Form with the WRC in which she alleged that she had not been paid the full amount that was due to her, in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 as amended. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant. In a letter from the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) dated 19 March 2025, the Complainant was informed of the details of the Hearing to take place on 7 May 2025. The same letter set out the procedure regarding postponement requests. On 6 May 2025, the Complainant emailed the WRC, requesting a postponement due to unforeseen work commitments. On 7 May 2025, the WRC emailed the Complainant. The WRC asked the Complainant to provide documentation in support of her postponement request by 9 May 2025. The Complainant did not respond. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent. In a letter from the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) dated 19 March 2025, the Respondent was informed of the details of the Hearing to take place on 7 May 2025. The same letter set out the procedure regarding postponement requests. The Respondent did not seek a postponement and did not attend the Hearing. On the morning of the Hearing, the WRC attempted, twice, to call the Respondent’s phone number on file. However, there was an engaged / disconnected ring tone. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the Hearing and did not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the Hearing but did not attend. I am also satisfied that the Complainant was informed of the procedure regarding postponement requests. Finally, I am satisfied that the Complainant was given the opportunity to provide documentation in support of her postponement request but did not do so. I am also satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the Hearing and did not attend. The Complainant failed to attend the Hearing as scheduled and failed to present any evidence in support of her complaint. In the circumstances, I find that the complaint is 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.
For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 07th July 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act 1991, Non-Attendance. |