ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057925
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Gustavo Mosqueda | Donuts C&B Limited t/a The Hot Donut |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaints:
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-00070307-001 | 26/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00070312-001 | 26/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00070312-002 | 26/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/09/2025
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 or Acts contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015, made to the Director General and where the said Director General has referred 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 two complaints of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015.
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.
Section 5(6) provides that where an employer has paid less to the employee than was properly payable to the employee or, indeed, has paid none of the wages that were properly payable to the employee then the amount of the deficiency shall be treated as a deduction for this Act.
The Complainant has additionally referred a matter for adjudication as provided for under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 and the referral has been made within six months of the date on which this claim accrued to the Complainant. In particular the complaint is that the Employee did not receive the appropriate Statutory Minimum notice (or payment in lieu) on termination of the employment and as outlined in Section 4of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973. Where the Adjudicator finds that the section was contravened by the Employer in relation to the Employee who presented the complaint, the Adjudication officer can direct that the employer concerned pay to the Employee compensation for any loss sustained by the Employee by reason of the contravention.
The Act requires a minimum period of notice to terminate the employment of an employee who has been employed for a qualifying period. The period of notice is to be calculated in accordance with the length of continuous service. This starts at thirteen weeks and goes up to fifteen years. Even where payment has been accepted in lieu of Notice the date of termination shall be deemed to be the date on which the notice would have expired.
Background:
This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.
The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 20th March 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.
In the interests of fairness, the WRC acquiesced to an application made for the provision of an interpreter. It is noted however that the interpreter did unfortunately not attend on the day. I spoke with the Complainant, and I am satisfied that the Complainant was agreeable to continuing with the hearing in the absence of an interpreter. I am further satisfied that the Complainant understood the issues and questions that I asked of him, and that no injustice was visited upon the Complainant. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. The Complainant gave evidence on his own account. The Complainant relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form. I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence (including wage slips) in support of the Complainant’s case. The Complainant alleges that after two years of employment the restaurant/café wherein he was working, the enterprise was abruptly closed down ostensibly for a refurbishment though this turned out not to be the case. Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 24th day of July 2025 - and posted to the given registered address. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have fully considered the evidence adduced by the Complainant herein. I am satisfied that the Complainant came to be employed by the Respondent company at the coffee and donut establishment on O’Connell Street. The Complainant was initially engaged as a Barista but eventually was engaged in a management capacity. The Complainant worked for in excess of two years, having commenced his employment on the 23rd of January 2023 and working through to the 3rd of March 2025. I understand that on this last date the Complainant and all of his colleagues were advised that the premises had to close. Initially the staff were told there was a fit-out planned, but in fact it seems there might have been issues with the landlord and I am accepting that the company did not reopen in this premises again. The Complainant has given evidence that he was not paid for his last week of wages. The Complainant has given further evidence that he was owed accrued annual leave to the value of 30 hours. The Complainant’s termination of employment was not preceded by a period of statutory notice and was in fact an abrupt cessation, leaving the Complainant out of pocket and out of a job. The Complainant is bringing a claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts elsewhere. The Complainant has given evidence that he was being paid €14.00 per hour for a 36-hour week. His weekly wage was in the amount of €404.00. I note that the Complainant was entitled to a two week notice period as he had been in employment for over two years. |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00070307-001 – The complaint herein concerning unpaid wages is well founded and I direct that the Respondent pay the sum of €504.00 to the Complainant Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00070312-001 – The complaint herein concerning accrued holiday/leave payments is well founded and I direct that the Respondent pays to the Complainant the sum of €420.00 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 CA-00070312-002 – The Complaint herein is well founded and I direct that the Respondent pays to the Complainant the sum of €1,008.00 |
Dated: 03/11/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|