ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057007
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Patrick Brien | Airport Hopper Holdings Ltd |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Did not attend 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-00069332-001 | 17/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/07/2025
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.
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.
Those in attendance were put under notice of the decision in the Zalewski case, that their evidence would be heard under oath or affirmation and of the penalty for perjury. Additionally, the parties were informed that they would be afforded an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and the hearing was to be held in public; the parties offered me neither objection nor reason to have the hearing held in private.
In attendance where the Complainant whom gave evidence under affirmation
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 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.
Background:
The Complainant is claiming unpaid wages related to his employment where the Respondent has ceased to trade. The Respondent is listed as normal on the CRO, and the documents were properly sent to their listed address. I am satisfied that the Respondent is properly on notice. The Complainant was employed as a Bus Driver by the Respondent form the 2nd of January 2023 to the 10th of February 2025 and was paid fortnightly €1686.80. He was dismissed on the 10/02/2025 and submitted his complaint on the 17/02/2025 bringing him well within the statutory time frame for bringing him within the statutory limit of six months. His claim is for two weeks wages unpaid wages at termination amounting to €1686.80 (€168.68 per day) and a total of 8.25 annual leave days untaken from 2024 and 2025 amounting to €1391.61 amounting to a total of €3078.41. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant has not received 2 weeks’ notice of termination of Employment or monies to that effect. In relation to holiday pay the Complainant is owed 6 days from last year and annual leave for having worked 1month and 10 days in this year. He was given no notice and told the hearing that the business is now operating under a new name. He further set out that he wanted was his redundancy pay. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant set out that had not received 2 weeks termination pay and was owed 6 days annual leave from last year and what amounts to 3.5 days from the current year having worked 2 months in 2025 before the business dismissed him. The Complainant set out that he also wanted Redundancy pay, but was informed that this was not possible under the referral he made and that would require a further complaint under the appropriate act within the timeframe for that act. Having allowed for the Respondent to attend and give evidence and they choosing to ignore the Commission I can only find that the details given to me under affirmation and without challenge are correct and I find the complaint 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.
I find the complaint well founded and pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act 1991 the Respondent shall pay the Complainant his claim h for two weeks wages unpaid at termination amounting to €1686.80 (168.68 per day) and a total of 8.25 annual leave days untaken from 2024 and 2025 amounting to €1391.61 amounting to a total of €3078.41 |
Dated: 25/07/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore
Key Words:
Failure to attend, |