ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060241

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Akeem Owolabi	Bgs Security Limited in Liquidation

Representatives

Peter Gibney (Dublin City Northwest Citizens Information Centre)

Tom Musiol (Musiol Advisory)

Complaint(s):

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-00073358-001	11/07/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00073358-002	11/07/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/02/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

I have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 that minute analysis or reasons are not required to and only broad reasons need be given and as per Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63 I am required to set out such material fundamentally relevant to the decision.

The parties were put under notice of the decision in the Zalewski case, that their evidence would be heard under oath or affirmation and of the penalty for perjury. Accordingly, the witnesses were advised of the penalty for perjury

Additionally, the parties were informed that they would be afforded an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and the hearing was to be held in public.

The parties offered me neither objection nor reason to have the hearing held in private.

For the Complainant the hearing was attended by the Complainant, Mr Obowali, represented by Mr Peter Gibney, Information Officer, Dublin City Northwest Citizens Information Centres. the Complainant gave evidence under affirmation and were made available for cross-exam. No other witnesses were produced.

For the Respondent the hearing was attended by, Mr Gyourko of Musiol Advisory in the role of Liquidator appointed by the Courts, and they gave evidence under affirmation.

During the hearing, it was further set out by the Respondent that they had documents to support their case. I allowed a further 7 days for the documents to be submitted and shared with the Respondent and a further 7 days for further comment, if required.

Background:

Employment Rights Complaint CA-00073989 Receipt Date: 01/08/2025 10:40:32 AM the Worker was employed between 13/09/2004 and 25/08/2024

CA-00073358-001 S 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00073358-002 S27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant sets out they worked for BGSS Limited from 03 to 23 March inclusive. . However, the company has never paid him for any work done. Additionally, he did not take any annual leave and was not paid the value of that annual leave on leaving.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant’s representative asserts:

That the Respondent unlawfully withheld the entirety of the Complainant wages, with no contractual basis, statutory basis, or written consent permitting such withholding.
That the non-payment of wages constitutes an unlawful deduction within the meaning of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act.
That Complainant accrued annual leave under Section 19 of the 1997 Act but received neither the leave nor payment in lieu, thereby placing the Respondent in breach of Section 23(1).

The Complainant sets out that they commenced employment with the Respondent on 05/03/2025 as a security guard.

The detail of hours which the Complainant worked, and the ultimate figure has changed between submission and the hearing and were finally settled post hearing as amounting to 131 hours at an agreed hourly rate of €14.50, amounting to €1899.50, gross.

Additionally, the Complainant was not able to discharge his annual and was not compensated for the same when his employment ceased. The value of this leave is calculated at €151.96, gross.

The total gross amount that is claimed is €2051.46, gross and remains to be discharged

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent is in liquidation with Tom Musiol Advisory in the role of Liquidator and Mr Gyourko attended on the Respondent behalf.

Mr Gyorko asked at the outset if he could engage with the Complainant to gather facts for his own role as Liquidator. The Complainant rep was agreeable to do this on the basis of emails and or phone calls. These matters are outside my remit as adjudicator and for the parties to engage as they see fit.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Respondent is a company in liquidation and represented here by the appointed Liquidator

The argument set out by the Complainant in relation to the Respondent (in liquidation) that they were taken advantage of in the performance of works for the Respondent for which they were never paid.

The Liquidator was able to confirm that the Complainant was an employee and couldn’t contradict the loss set out by the Complainant.

The Complainant was able to adduce evidence after the hearing to demonstrate an employment relationship with the Respondent.

The Complainant testified under affirmation that the details given were true and correct and that his loss under both complaints €2051.46 gross.

The Liquidator was not in a position to contradict any of the Complainant’s sworn evidence

In all the circumstances and the evidence before me I can only conclude that the complaint is well founded and the Respondent (in liquidation ) should make a payment of €2051.46 gross, in salary properly payable and not paid by the Respondent BGS (in liquidation) .

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

For the reasons set out above I find the following complaints well-founded:

CA-00073358-001 S 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00073358-002 S27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

In all the circumstances I direct that the Respondent, BGS (in liquidation ) should make a payment of €2051.46 gross, in unpaid salary and for undischarged annual leave.

Dated: 06-03-26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL

Key Words:

BGS, Liquidator