ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055391
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Danijel Filko | Academic Bridge Academic Bridge Ltd |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00067387-002 | 14/11/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00067525-001 | 14/11/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/05/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
On 14 November 2024 the Complainant referred 2 complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission as listed above. In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, a hearing was convened on 26 May 2025 in order that I might enquire into the complaints and to afford the parties an opportunity to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant; neither was there any attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent and neither party provided written submissions.
Background:
In his complaint form, the Complainant outlined that he was employed as a Managing Director with the Respondent. He alleged that he was not paid wages due to him, for the months of April, June, August And September 2024 and that he was only partically paid for the months of February, March, May, July and October 2024. He alleged that the total amount owed to him was in excess of €17K. There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent, neither did the Respondent provide a written submission outlining its position. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant, neither did the Complainant provide a written submission to support his allegations.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent, neither did the Respondent provide a written submission outlining its position.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
On the day of the hearing, I awaited the attendance of the parties for in excess of 20 minutes beyond the scheduled start time but there was no attendance by or on behalf of either party at the hearing. I allowed more than 10 days from the day of hearing for either party to make contact with the WRC post hearing to explain the absence, before finalising this decision. No contact was made. CA- 00067387-002
As the Complainant was not present to move his complaint and in the context that I am satisfied that the said Complainant was informed in writing of the arrangements for the hearing and in the absence of any explanation for his non-attendance, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00067525-001
As the Complainant was not present to move his complaint and in the context that I am satisfied that the said Complainant was informed in writing of the arrangements for the hearing and in the absence of any explanation for his non-attendance, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA- 00067387-002
For the reasons outlined above I have found that this complaint is not well founded, and I decide accordingly.
CA-00067525-001
For the reasons outlined above I have found that this complaint is not well founded, and I decide accordingly.
|
Dated: 26th of June 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
|