ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055589

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Ireneusz Pedzisz	Lidl Ireland GmBh

Representatives

Scott Jevons,

Employee Relations Manager with Lidl

Complaint:

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-00067784-001	30/11/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/03/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015, made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered during the course of the hearing.

The Complainant has brought a complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 - which said Act is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 and where such a complaint is presented the Director General is empowered to refer that complaint forward for adjudication by an Adjudication Officer pursuant to Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. Following the said referral, it is incumbent on the assigned Adjudicator to make all relevant enquiries into the complaint. This will include hearing oral evidence, considering submissions made and receiving other relevant evidence.

In particular, the Complainant herein has referred the following complaint:

A complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.

By way of preliminary observation, I am satisfied a Contract of Employment existed between the parties such that a wage defined by the 1991 Act was payable to the Employee by the Employer in connection with the employment. I further find that the Complainant’s Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 30th of November 2024 allows me to consider a six month period immediately preceding that date.

Background:

This hearing was to be conducted in remotely as provided for in the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party would have been prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

Had evidence been given, it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came intoeffecton the 29th of July 2021, and which said legislation accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence.

The Complaint herein was brought to the attention of the WRC on the 30th of November 2024 by way of a workplace relations complaint form.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 5th of February - and emailed to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means when filling out his complaint form.

From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant seeks to establish that he was underpaid by his Employer in their calculations of what was due to the Complainant in a final paycheck. I understand that the Complainant had resigned his employment and that it was an amicable parting of the ways.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent was represented by its own Employee Relations Manager. A number of witnesses were on hand to assist with the Respondent Defence to the claim. I was provided with a robust Submission refuting the claim as of the 7th of March 2025.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant did not attend this remote hearing which was set up to facilitate him in the prosecution of his claim. I am grateful to the member of the WRC staff who phoned the Complainant when he did not respond to the remote invite. I understand that despite this real time telephone communication the Complainant chose not to attend the hearing.

The Complainant provided no evidence.

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.

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

CA-00067784-001 – The complaint herein fails in circumstances where no evidence was tendered to establish a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act.

Dated: 2nd May 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Key Words: