ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058335
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Adam John Mc Donagh | Super Streaming Tech Limited |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00071012-001 | 22/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
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.
A hearing was held on the 13th of October 2025. Hearing notices were sent to the Respondent’s registered address. The Respondent did not attend. On the day of the hearing the Respondent’s CEO sent the following email to the WRC:
To whom it may concern, I just got a letter addressed to the business regarding a no longer representation hearing. I tried to reach out to the firm but did not hear anything back. There was a hearing scheduled for today but was not able to reach the group so I am assuming no need for the hearing or the case moving forward? Please confirm? B BART BARDEN | CEO
The following was sent to the Respondent’s CEO on the 16th of October from the WRC case officer.
Dear Mr Barden, I referred your email to the Adjudication Officer in this matter, Mr David James Murphy, who confirmed ADJ-00058335 and ADJ-00059591 were heard on the 13th of October. He has asked me to respond noting the following:
“On review of Mr Barden’s email, I am unsure why he didn’t attend the hearing, whether he is requesting the matter to be relisted for another hearing date and if so what would be the justification for such a move considering he seems to have been on notice of the hearing which the Complainant did attend. He might please clarify these issues by close of business on the 23rd of October or a decision arising from the hearing he didn’t attend may issue without further notice.”
Mr Barden did not reply to this email.
Background:
The Complainant commenced working on the 1st of February 2024 as the Respondent’s Director of Game Operations. He was dismissed on the 7th of May 2025.
The Complainant’s contract provides for an “investment milestone” bonus. This provides that where the Company received an aggregate sum of €500,000 in third party capital investment the Complainant would receive 3 payments of €3334. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant attended the hearing and made detailed written submissions and provided oral evidence under affirmation. He provided a copy of his contract of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 This claims relates to alleged breaches of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act which prohibits deductions from wages unless certain specific criteria are met. Section 1 of the Act defines wages as to include bonus payments. Where a deduction from wages has occurred it will generally be for the Respondent to show that it was permitted. However, the Complainant must first establish that a deduction has happened, i.e. an amount was paid to them which was less than what was properly payable or nothing was paid to them when they were owed payment. The Complainant’s contract provides for an “investment milestone” bonus. This provides that where the Company received an aggregate sum of €500,000 in third party capital investment the Complainant would receive 3 payments of €3334. The Complainant outlined that this occurred in 2024 and the payments were due on at the end of October. He further outlined that the Respondent accepted that this was owing to him and had indicated in his termination letter that it would be paid post termination, though they labelled it as another type of bonus. The Complainant provided a copy of this correspondence. The Respondent did not attend the hearing and dispute any of this. On the evidence available to me €10,002 was properly payable to the Complainant and was not paid and the Respondent has failed to provide any lawful reason for their failure to pay the sum owing to the Complainant. |
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.
I find that the complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €10,002. |
Dated: 31-10-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|