Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Damien  Kiely

Airport Hopper Holdings Ltd

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-Represented

 No Appearance

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-00069346-001

17/02/2025

The Complainant appeared in person at the hearing.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

It was the Complainant’s case that he was employed by the Respondent, a bus company that operated routes to and from Dublin Airport. He commenced employment on 30 June 2023 and earned a gross sum of €190 per day.

He stated that while there had been some suspicion among him and his colleagues that the Respondent had ceased operations on 10 February 2025, this was only confirmed when he received a call from a researcher on the Joe Duffy Show on RTÉ Radio 1, asking for his view on the closure.

Following this, the Complainant received an email from the Respondent dated 13 February 2025, citing difficulties in meeting its obligations to Revenue. He noted that the email was not signed by Mr Keith Spain, the Director, but instead bore a generic customer service signature.

Since that date, despite efforts to make contact, there has been no further communication from the Respondent.

The Complainant stated that he was left in a difficult position, having received neither notice nor payment in lieu of notice, nor payment for six days of annual leave carried over from 2024 and three days accrued in 2025.

Having waited a reasonable period of time, again there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

Based on the undisputed evidence of the Complainant, I find the complaint is well founded.

In terms of redress, Section 6(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides:

“6. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4C or 5 as respects a deduction made by an employer from the wages or tips or gratuities of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding—

(a) the net amount of the wages, or tip or gratuity as the case may be (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that—

(i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or

(ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,

or

(b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.”

Where the complaint is well founded, I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €1,900 being twice the amount of the payment that ought to have been made by the Respondent.

Payment of Wages