Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Arpita  Pandey

Jacks At Pilgrims Rest

Representatives

No appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at hearing.

No appearance by or on behalf of respondent at hearing.

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00066842-001

21/10/2024

On 21 October 2024, the General Manager submitted a complaint of non-payment of wages on 19 October 2024.

On the next day, the Respondent was notified of the claim.

Correspondence issued from the WRC to the nominated address for the respondent    has been returned marked “gone away “

19 February, 5 March, and 13 May 2025.

Both Parties were invited to hearing scheduled for 24 March 2025. The Complainant secured a postponement for that date.

The case was rescheduled for 13 June 2025.

On 5 June , 2025 , I wrote to both Parties and canvassed written submissions and supporting documents .

Neither Party attended for hearing and neither gave any reason for their nonappearance.

I have waited for the 5-day period to allow for such an excuse prior to issuing my decision.

I have not received any such excuse.

Neither Party made an appearance nor sent a representative to hearing.

The Complainant, Mr Pandey introduced himself as a General Manager and Lay Litigant on his complaint form.

He wrote that he had commenced work at “Jacks at Pilgrims Rest “on 28 August 2024, signed a contract for €40,000 and had not been paid “any wages since 1st week.”

The Complainant submitted a claim for €4,500 for wages not received on 19 October 2024, which had placed him in financial hardship and reliant on social welfare.

The Complainant did not avail of the opportunity to submit a written submission in support of his claim.

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

The Respondent did not avail of the opportunity to submit a written submission in defence of the claim.

I am satisfied that the notification of claim was received at the business. However, all further correspondence was returned as “gone away “during 2025 .

I have been requested to make a decision in this claim in accordance with the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

I invited submissions prehearing, without success.

The Parties were both invited to hearing on 13 June 2025 and neither has communicated a reason for not attending this hearing.

The Parties will appreciate that the WRC provided the Parties with a hearing to permit both sides positions to be ventilated.

I would have preferred if the Parties had alerted the WRC in advance that they were not attending.

I found both parties nonattendance on a notified claim to be unreasonable.

I have not received any documentation on the antecedence of the claim via a Grievance procedure.

I must find the claim CA-00066842-001 for payment of €4,500 in unpaid wages is not well founded as the complainant did not make himself available to give evidence or explain his non-appearance at hearing.

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.

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with Section 5 of   that Act.

I must find the claim CA-00066842-001 for payment of €4,500 in unpaid wages is not well founded, as the complainant did not make himself available to give evidence or explain his non-appearance at hearing.

It has been impossible for me to establish a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

Claim for unpaid wages.