ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058717
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Igor Zupan | Capita Customer Solutions Limited |
Representatives | Self- represented | The HR Suite |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00071449-001 | 09/05/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00071449-002 | 09/05/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/11/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Valerie Murtagh
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. The hearing was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Parties were sworn in at the commencement of the hearing.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was employed as a customer service specialist with the Respondent from 10 June 2024 until 28 March 2025. The Complainant states that he is owed 128 hours in respect of holiday hours and 60 bank holiday hours which should have been paid into his bank account on 25 April 2025. He states that he has made numerous calls to the Respondent but the matter remains unresolved. The Complainant further states that he is owed the sum of €877.23 in wages that the Respondent failed to pay him. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent states that the Complainant tendered his resignation on 26 March 2025 and requested to leave the company on 28 March providing three days notice. The Respondent states that as per the Complainant’s contract, the company would usually require 1 months notice however the company facilitated the Complainant’s early exit in line with his request. The Respondent states that contrary to the Complainant’s assertion that he is owed wages, in actual fact the Complainant has been overpaid due to receiving wages in error during periods of unpaid sick leave in 2024 and 2025 and overtaking of accrued annual leave for 2025 up to the leaving date of 26 March 2025. The Respondent reiterates that the Complainant is not owed any outstanding payments in relation to wages, annual leave or notice pay. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Complaint under Organisation of Working Time Act I have reviewed said complaint. Based on the comprehensive documentation submitted by the Respondent, I find that the Complainant has not established a breach of the legislation and accordingly I find that this complaint is not well-founded. Complaint under Payment of Wages Act I have examined the claim under the Payment of Wages Act and on the basis of the documentation submitted at hearing, I find that the Complainant has not demonstrated a breach of the Payment of Wages Act. I find that this 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-00071449 - 001 Complaint under Organisation of Working Time Act This complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00071449 - 002 Complaint under Payment of Wages Act This complaint is not well-founded.
|
Dated: 26-11-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Valerie Murtagh
Key Words:
Organisation of Working Time Act, Payment of Wages Act |