ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056719
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Kah Loon Kong | Turning Point Catering Limited Garden House |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives | In person | Ms Bebhinn Murphy BL, instructed by Ms Nicole Doyle, Solicitor, Hanlon's Solicitors. |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00068314-001 | 21/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00068314-003 | 21/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00068314-004 | 21/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022 | CA-00068314-005 | 21/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 | CA-00068314-006 | 21/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00068314-007 | 21/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00068321-001 | 23/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00068321-003 | 23/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00068321-004 | 23/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022 | CA-00068321-005 | 23/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 | CA-00068321-006 | 23/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00068321-007 | 23/12/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/04/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
Background:
The complainant was employed by the respondent from 18th September 2023 until 13th November 2024, the complainant was employed as a chef.
The first complaint from the complainant was dated 21st December 2024 and the second complaint was received on 23rd December 2024.When comparing the two complaint forms, I believe the second complaint form is a duplicate of the first one and I note the following.
The complaints received on 23rd December are duplicates of the complaints received on 21st December 2024.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant produced a submission supporting his position. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent representative presented a submission. The Respondent representative acknowledged that questions of compliance / legality existed. |
Findings and Conclusions:
From papers submitted at the hearing I have noted the following: 1. As per complaint form the complainant was earning €750 nett per week. 2. A s per the contract of employment the stated hourly rate of pay was €16.76. 3. As per Revenue documents submitted by the complainant the weekly rate of pay was €229.50 gross. 4. There are several unanswered questions in relation to the number of hours per week the complainant worked and the number of hours he would be legally permitted to work. I conclude that the employment contract / relationship is so tainted by illegality that it is not enforceable. I can not and will not assist either party where illegality exists and feel that the contract has to be considered void.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I conclude that the employment contract / relationship is so tainted by illegality that it is not enforceable. I can not and will not assist either party where illegality exists and feel that the contract has to be considered void.
|
Dated: 1st July 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
|