ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058839

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Joseph Lennon	Kenplast Ltd

Representatives

Operative Plasterers & Allied Trades Society of Ireland

Complaint:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994	CA-00071276-001	02/05/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997	CA-00071276-002	02/05/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015	CA-00071276-003	02/05/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015	CA-00071276-005	02/05/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015	CA-00071276-007	02/05/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994	CA-00071276-008	02/05/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994	CA-00072288-001	06/06/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997	CA-00072288-002	06/06/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015	CA-00072288-003	06/06/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015	CA-00072288-004	06/06/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015	CA-00072288-005	06/06/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994	CA-00072288-006	06/06/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/09/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kara Turner

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 held in public and there were no special circumstances warranting otherwise, or the anonymisation of this decision.

Documentation and submissions received were exchanged between the parties.

Mr Joseph Lennon (the “complainant”) attended the hearing arranged for 4 September 2025 along with his representative Mr Barry Murphy of the Operative Plasterers & Allied Trades Society of Ireland (“OPATSI”). Ms Lena Kenna attended the hearing on behalf of Kenplast Ltd (the “respondent”) to request an adjournment of the hearing, which application was grounded on the unavailability of the respondent’s directors, Mr Keith Kenna and Mr Ciaran Kenna, to attend the hearing due to being on a job. Ms Kenna advised that the respondent had received 2 weeks’ notice of the hearing and of a postponement application by a representative for the respondent in advance of the hearing which had been declined by the Commission. The complainant objected to an adjournment and outlined circumstances and arrangements made to attend the hearing in Lansdowne House. Having considered communications between the representative for the respondent and the Commission in advance of the hearing, along with the position of the parties at the hearing and having due regard to the respective rights of the parties, I was not satisfied of exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons for an adjournment and informed the parties that the hearing would proceed. Hearing letters in respect of the 4 September hearing date had issued from the Commission to the parties on 8 August 2025. The respondent’s hearing letter issued to its registered address. Previous communications from the Commission in relation to the complaints had issued to the same address and no issue was raised by / on behalf of the respondent. The respondent’s representative was informed prior to the hearing of the WRC Guidelines in relation to postponements. Whilst the representative objected to the hearing proceeding on 4 September, they did not engage with the Commission on the reason why their client could not attend the hearing. Ms Kenna advised the hearing that she was unable to comment on the respondent’s position in respect of the complaints, and that she had not appreciated she would be making a formal application for an adjournment. I explained to Ms Kenna the implications of the hearing proceeding without the respondent’s interests being represented. I afforded Ms Kenna an opportunity to take advice and also afforded time for relevant personnel to attend Lansdowne House for the hearing. Ms Kenna reverted to advise that there would be nobody in a position to attend the hearing on behalf of the respondent, and she left the hearing thereafter.

The hearing proceeded with submissions on behalf of the complainant and the complainant’s sworn evidence.

Background:

The complainant has worked with the respondent as a plasterer since 2019. He remains in the respondent’s employment and was on certified sick leave at the time of the hearing.

The complainant referred various complaints to the Commission in connection with his employment.

Based on the complainant’s analysis of payslips received in 2025, the complainant was paid €19.85 gross per hour for a 39-hour week.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant was offered a net wage of €600 on commencement of employment in 2019. In October 2020, the complainant sought an increase and was ultimately given a €50 per week increase. The complainant was not in receipt of pay slips from the respondent in or around this time.

In 2021, the complainant asked the respondent about a pension but was told that he had no such entitlement.

The complainant was laid off for the period 19 February 2025 to 3 March 2025.

In late March 2025, the complainant queried with Mr Keith Kenna a discrepancy between pay received and that returned on his revenue account. The complainant was referred to the company accountant who assured the complainant there was nothing wrong. The complainant engaged his own accountant to review his pay and revenue account. The complainant’s accountant did not agree with the respondent’s position that there was nothing amiss. A meeting was arranged for 3 April 2025 at the respondent’s accountant’s office. The complainant did not accept the response to the queries raised on his behalf regarding fluctuations and discrepancies in the gross income returned by the respondent for taxation, or the respondent’s proposals for resolution of the issue. The meeting concluded without resolution.

Following this meeting, the respondent’s demeanour towards the complainant changed. The complainant found himself excluded/isolated in the workplace and the company vehicle which he had retained following a job in May 2022 was taken off him.

The respondent failed in its statutory obligations to the complainant in relation to the provision of a written statement of terms of employment, provision of pension, sick pay or death in service benefit and an appropriate rate of pay. It was further submitted that upon the complainant referring the respondent to the Sectoral Employment Order for the construction sector, the respondent penalised the complainant in contravention of section 20 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent did not engage with the Commission in relation to the complaints referred for adjudication.

The person in attendance on behalf of the respondent on the hearing date was unable to respond to the complaints or represent the respondent’s interests at the hearing.

Findings and Conclusions:

By way of written submissions received prior to the hearing, the complainant’s representative advised of an error whereby duplicate complaints had been referred to the Commission on 6 June 2025, and of withdrawal of those duplicate complaints bearing complaint reference number CA-00072288. This was confirmed at the hearing.

The complaints for adjudication were referred to the Commission on 2 May 2025. Having regard to the timeframe for referral of complaints under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, the period the subject of this adjudication is from 3 November 2024 to 2 May 2025.

CA-00071276-001: This is a complaint seeking adjudication under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, as amended, (the “1994 Act”).

Section 3 of the 1994 Act requires an employer, within a certain period of time following an employee commencing employment, to provide an employee with a statement in writing with particulars of certain terms of the employment. In 2019, the obligation was for an employer to provide the statement within 2 months of an employee commencing employment.

The 1994 Act implements European Council directive 91/533/EEC and 2019/1152/EU which concern the creation and promotion of transparency for employees.

The complainant’s undisputed evidence was that he was never provided with a statement of terms of employment. It was further undisputed, and I am satisfied based on the information before me that the complainant worked for the respondent under a contract of employment.

As the complainant remained in the respondent’s employment at the date of referral of this complaint, the contravention was subsisting.

In the circumstances, I find that the complaint of a contravention of section 3 of the 1994 Act is well founded. As the complainant remained in employment at the time of the hearing, I require the respondent to give or cause to be given to the complainant a statement in compliance with section 3 of the 1994 Act. In addition, I direct the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation of €3,460.00, which sum I consider just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances. The compensation amount has been determined based on the minimum hourly rate for a craftsperson under the relevant Sectoral Employment Order for the construction sector and a 39-hour working week and does not exceed 4 weeks’ remuneration calculated in accordance with the regulations referred to in section 7(2)(d) of the 1994 Act.

CA-00071276-002: This is a complaint seeking adjudication under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the “1997 Act”).

This complaint in relation to public holiday entitlements was withdrawn by / on behalf of the complainant.

CA-00071273-003: This is a complaint seeking adjudication under section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 (the “2015 Act”).

Section 23 of the 2015 Act, in relevant part, provides:-

“ (1) This section applies to a decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Act of 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of—

(a) subsection (1) of section 20,

(b) a registered employment agreement (within the meaning of Chapter 2), or

(c) a sectoral employment order (within the meaning of Chapter 3).

(2) A decision of an adjudication officer to which this section applies shall do one or more of the following, namely—

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b) require the employer to comply with the provision in respect of which the complaint concerned relates and, for that purpose, require the employer to take a specified course of action, or

(c) require the employer to pay to the worker compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 104 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the worker’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

…”

This complaint was of a contravention of a sectoral employment order (“SEO”), namely that the respondent, in breach of the relevant SEO for the construction sector:-

(i) failed to have in place a pension scheme providing benefits for the complainant, a worker covered by the SEO, and provide for contributions to same (the SEO (Construction Sector) 2021, S.I. No. 598 of 2021);

(ii) failed to have in place a sick pay scheme and provide for contributions to same (the SEO (Construction Sector) 2021, S.I. No. 598 of 2021);

(iii) failed to make provision for a Death in Service benefit and provide for contributions to same (the SEO (Construction Sector) 2019, S.I. No. 234 of 2019).

The SEOs referred to above are orders made under section 17 of the 2015 Act and establish minimum arrangements for certain terms and conditions of employment in the construction sector in accordance with section 16(5) of the 2015 Act.

The undisputed evidence before me was of the respondent being an employer in the construction sector providing building and plastering services, and of the complainant having served his time in the trade to become a plasterer.

I am satisfied that the respondent is an employer and the complainant a worker to whom the Sectoral Employment Order (Construction Sector) 2019 (S.I. No. 234 of 2019) applies and based on the complainant’s evidence of his trade and experience, that the complainant is a craftsperson within the meaning of that SEO and subsequent amending SEOs.

The SEO (Construction Sector) 2021 amended the SEO (Construction Sector) 2019 provisions on pension schemes to provide:-

“Every employer employing workers to whom the Order applies must have in place a pension scheme that provides pension benefits for each employee covered in the Order.”

The relevant terms provide that the pension scheme must meet the requirements set out in the SEO, which include that the SEO pension scheme should be an occupational pension scheme, registered with and regulated by the Pensions Authority. I further note from the terms that a Death in Service benefit must be provided for by the SEO pension scheme with members covered for that additional benefit upon joining the scheme. Death in service contributions are expressed to form part of the overall contribution rate of an SEO pension scheme with a portion payable by both the employer and employee in addition to the pension contributions.

The SEO (Construction Sector) 2021 further amended the SEO (Construction Sector) 2019 provisions relating to a sick pay scheme and provides:-

“Every employer employing workers to whom the Order applies must have in place a sick pay scheme for each employee covered in the Order. Weekly contributions to a scheme are as follows …”

The complainant’s uncontested evidence was of the respondent having no pension scheme and no sick pay scheme in place and of there being no contributions to any such scheme, including for Death in Service benefit. The complainant’s payslips from January 2025 show no deduction/contribution or provision in respect of contributions to relevant schemes.

I conclude the material facts to be as follows:-

(i) that the SEO applied to the respondent and the complainant’s employment with the respondent.

(ii) that the complainant was a craftsperson within the meaning of the SEO.

(iii) that the respondent did not have in place a pension scheme in compliance with S.I. No. 598 of 2021 and S.I. No. 234 of 2019.

(iv) that the respondent did not have in place a sick pay scheme in compliance with S.I. No. 598 of 2021 and S.I. No. 234 of 2019.

(v) that the respondent was in breach of the SEO terms and conditions relating to sick pay and pension (including Death in Service) provision throughout the cognisable period for adjudication of this complaint.

Accordingly, I find the complaint of a contravention of the relevant SEO for the construction sector is well founded. In circumstances where the evidence was of non-compliance with the relevant SEO for the entirety of the complainant’s employment and where the complainant has not had the benefit of any sick pay scheme for a recent certified sick leave absence, I consider compensation the appropriate form of redress. I require the respondent pay to the complainant compensation of €10,000.00 which I consider just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. I have determined the compensation amount having regard to the seriousness of the respondent’s failure to meet its responsibilities and obligations to the complainant under the relevant SEOs, which provide minimum terms in respect of pension and sick pay provision, and the significant consequences for the complainant of such failure.

CA-00071276-005: This is a complaint seeking adjudication under section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 (the “2015 Act”).

The complaint referred was of a contravention of section 20(1) of the 2015 Act, namely that the complainant was penalised by the respondent after the complainant referred to the SEO for the construction sector and raised the issue of not being paid correct rates of pay and not receiving other entitlements. It was submitted that following a meeting on 3 April 2025, at which the complainant had clearly sought the terms of the SEOs, the respondent unilaterally altered the terms of the complainant’s employment by removing use of the company van and refusing to converse with the complainant.

The complainant outlined in evidence the issues raised at the meeting of 3 April 2025. His evidence was that the issues concerned financial treatment of pay and related to the income returned by the respondent to revenue in respect of the complainant, fluctuations in the figure and expenses. The complainant further outlined how two weeks after the meeting, the van was taken off him and the complainant’s work environment, tasks and the respondent’s attitude towards him changed. The complainant felt isolated and excluded and considered the situation to be very hostile. The complainant found the respondent’s conduct unbearable.

On the complainant’s evidence, I am not satisfied that he undertook a protected act within the meaning of section 20(1) of the 2015 Act. The written submissions referred to the complainant raising the terms and entitlements under the SEOs at the meeting of 3 April, however this was not borne out on the complainant’s evidence of the meeting. I clarified with the complainant and his representative that this representative did not attend the meeting of 3 April, rather the complainant had been accompanied by his accountant. I am therefore satisfied on the complainant’s account of the meeting that the issues raised by / on behalf of the complainant related to the financial detail of payslips, returns to revenue and the matter of vouched/otherwise expenses.

In the circumstances, I find that the complaint of a contravention of section 20 of the 2015 Act is not well founded.

CA-00071276-007: This is a complaint seeking adjudication under section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 (the “2015 Act”).

As I have found above, the respondent is an employer, and the complainant is a worker to whom the SEOs for the construction sector apply. I have further found that the complainant is a craftsperson for the purpose of the SEOs.

This complaint is of a breach by the respondent of SEO (Construction Sector) 2023, S.I. No. 207 of 2023, in not paying the complainant the minimum hourly rate of basic pay.

Based on the cognisable period of 3 November 2024 to 2 May 2025, the minimum hourly rate of basic pay for a craftsperson was €22.24.

The complainant’s evidence was of struggling to ascertain precisely what he was being paid by the respondent because of initially not having any payslips and having been subsequently provided with payslips with insufficient information. On the complainant’s assessment, based on a 39-hour week, he was paid an hourly rate of €19.85 during the cognisable period.

On the complainant’s account of his normal weekly working hours and the payslips before me, I find that the complainant was not paid the minimum hourly rate of basic pay for a craftsperson in accordance with the 2023 SEO for the construction sector during the cognisable period.

I therefore find this complaint is well founded, and I require the respondent pay to the complainant compensation of €3,500.00 which I consider just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. In determining compensation payable, I have taken account of the difficulties encountered by the complainant, by reference to payslips, in particularising financial loss in the cognisable period, and its estimation of financial loss for a 26-week period, referable to the cognisable period, of €2,423.46. I have considered the period of lay-off in February/ March 2025 during the cognisable period and I have also taken into account payslips in the period showing a fixed net pay of €650 notwithstanding variable gross basic pay.

CA-00071276-008: This is a complaint seeking adjudication under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, as amended, (the “1994 Act”).

Section 3(1A) of the 1994 Act requires an employer to provide an employee with a statement in writing with certain core particulars of the terms of an employee’s employment within 5 days of the employee commencing employment.

The complainant’s uncontested evidence was of not receiving any documentation / statement in writing with particulars of the terms of his employment. The complainant’s evidence was of commencing employment on 11 February 2019.

I find therefore that section 3(1A) of the 1994 Act was contravened by the respondent and that this complaint is well founded.

Having regard to my decision in CA-00071276-001, I make no further order in respect of this complaint.

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-00071276-001

In accordance with section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, as amended, I find that the complaint of a contravention of section 3 of the Act is well founded for the reasons set out above. I require the respondent to give or cause to be given to the complainant a written statement in compliance with section 3 of the Act and direct the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €3,460.00, which I consider just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances and which sum does not exceed 4 weeks’ remuneration calculated in accordance with the regulations referred to in section 7(2)(d) of the 1994 Act.

CA-00071276-002

This complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 was withdrawn by / on behalf of the complainant.

CA-00071276-003

For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint of a contravention of the relevant SEO for the construction sector is well founded and, in accordance with section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015, require the respondent pay to the complainant compensation of €10,000.00 which I consider just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA-00071276-005

For the reasons set out above, I find that this complaint of a contravention of section 20 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 is not well founded.

CA-00071276-007

For the reasons set out above, I find that this complaint of a contravention of the SEO (Construction Sector) 2023, S.I. No. 207 of 2023, is well founded, and I require the respondent pay to the complainant compensation of €3,500.00 which I consider just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA-00071276-008

For the reasons set out above and in accordance with section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, I find that the complaint of a contravention of section 3(1A) of the 1994 Act is well founded.

CA-00072288-001