ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048061
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Julie O'Sullivan | Hatstone Ireland LLP |
Representatives | Lavelle Partners | AOC Solicitors |
Complaints:
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-00059051-001 | 27/09/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00059051-002 | 27/09/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00059051-003 | 27/09/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/04/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
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:
The complaints were submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on the 27th September 2023 concerning alleged breached of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. Specifically, the complainant is seeking that she be paid for the first two days of June 2023 and for her outstanding annual leave and public holiday entitlements. The complainant is seeking €1384.62 in respect of two days unpaid salary for 1st and 2nd June 2023 and €4615.40 in respect of outstanding annual leave entitlements. |
Preliminary Point – Status of respondent:
The respondent representative contends that the Adjudication Officer does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint because the respondent entity is dissolved and no longer exists. The fact that the respondent organisation was dissolved and no longer subsists was not disputed by the complainant at the adjudication hearing. In those circumstances, it is a matter of jurisdiction whether the complaint can be heard. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The respondent organisation was dissolved with effect from 29th September 2023. The respondent being dissolved was not disputed by the complainant. I further note that the complaint submitted to the WRC referred only to Hatstone Ireland LLP. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) Adjudication Services has repeatedly held that where a respondent entity is dissolved, the Adjudication Officer does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The Labour Court in Michael Gannon Landscaping Limited v Janis Golubevs (MWD 126) also held as follows: “The Court was informed that the respondent company has been dissolved. Consequently, the respondent company in this case has ceased to have any legal existence and its assets (if any) have been vested in the Minister for Finance by virtue of Section 28 of the State Property Act, 1954. In the absence of any statutory provision giving a dissolved company a legal status for the purpose of proceedings under the Act, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The Court determines accordingly.” On the basis that the respondent entity, as referred to the WRC, is dissolved and no longer exists, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint. |
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 stated above, I find that I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. |
Dated: 06/06/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
|