ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056335
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Paul Harte | JMS International Holdings Limited |
Representatives | Represented himself | Did not attend the hearing |
Complaint:
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-00068577-001 | 13/01/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/06/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, this complaint was assigned to me by the Director General. I conducted a hearing on June 11th 2025, at which I made enquiries and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint. The complainant, Mr Paul Harte, attended the hearing alone and represented himself. No one attended for the respondent, JMS International Holdings Limited, and they were not represented. Having checked the case file, I am satisfied that, on April 30th 2025, JMS International Holdings was properly notified of the date and time of the hearing. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence submitted by or on behalf of the respondent, I have reached the conclusions set out below based on the evidence of Mr Harte.
For the remainder of this document, I will refer to Mr Harte as “the complainant” and to JMS International Holdings Limited as “the respondent.”
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The respondent trades as Shanahan’s on the Green and the complainant commenced working there on May 14th 2006. He was employed as a waiter working 40 hours per week. When his employment ended, his wages before deductions was €1,095 per week. His payslips show that his net pay for working a standard five-day week was €838.70. At the hearing, the complainant said that the restaurant was due to open on Sunday, October 13th 2024 and that around 40 bookings had been received. A few days beforehand, he said that the staff got a message to say that the restaurant wouldn’t open that day. He said that this was a bit unusual, considering the number of bookings. The restaurant didn’t open that Sunday and, in fact, didn’t open again. In the documents he submitted for the hearing, the complainant included a copy of an email dated October 13th 2024 from the proprietor explaining that the company’s bank accounts had been frozen by the Revenue Commissioners and that he was travelling to the United States to look for a financial solution to the difficulties in his business. On October 26th, the company’s accountant confirmed that the restaurant would not re-open and she applied for redundancy payments on behalf of several employees. In advance of the hearing of this matter, the complainant submitted a document that confirmed that he received a redundancy lump sum. The complainant provided evidence of payslips up to week 41 of 2024, which ended on October 6th. A statement of his account on the website of the Revenue Commissioners shows that he was paid up to that date. In this complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the complainant claims an entitlement to one week’s pay for week 42, which ended on October 13th 2024, plus eight weeks’ notice and pay for outstanding holidays. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides that, to ground a complaint under the Act, wages must be properly payable: (6) Where— (a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or (b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee, then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion. The complainant’s evidence has not been rebutted and I find therefore that, in breach of section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, gross pay of €1,095 which was due to him for his final week at work has not been paid. As the complainant was employed by the respondent for 18 years, at the termination of his employment on October 26th 2024, he was entitled to eight weeks’ notice. As he didn’t receive any notice, he is entitled to pay in lieu of notice. Considering the claim for outstanding holiday pay, I reviewed the payslips submitted by the complainant and I am satisfied that, between January 1st and October 6th 2024, he was paid for 16 days’ annual leave. As he worked for 42 weeks in 2024, he was entitled to 16 days’ holidays. I find therefore, that there is no holiday balance due. |
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 decide that this complaint is well founded. In accordance with section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (as amended), I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €9,855, comprising one week’s gross pay for the week ending on October 13th 2024 and eight weeks’ gross pay in lieu of notice. This award is subject to deductions of tax, PRSI and USC. |
Dated: 18/06/25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Wages not paid, pay in lieu of notice |