ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058404
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Waitress | A Restaurant |
Representatives | Not present | A Manager |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute 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-00071073-001 | 24/04/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00071073-002 | 24/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
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.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The Hearing too place completely in public
Background:
A complaint form was received by the WRC from a person on April 24th 2024. The form contained a double Complainant name and a number of complaints and the person stated in the form they wished to remain anonymous for fear of being fired. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
A complaint form was received by the WRC that set out complaints regarding breaks, minimum wages, Sunday premiums and bank holiday payments. There was no appearance by the person named on the complaint form. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
A Representative of the Respondent attended the Hearing and advised that the person named on the complaint form does not work for the Respondent and never did. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the complaint form the person who submitted the form stated they needed to remain anonymous. The WRC attempted to communicate with the person named on the form at the home address supplied in the complaint form. The communications were returned undelivered. Telephone calls made by the WRC were not able to reach the provided telephone number. I am satisfied from the documentation and subsequent events that the person named on the complaint form did not work for the named Respondent, It is not appropriate for the WRC to adjudicate on the complaints submitted by a person who did not work for the named Employer and when the person who did submit the complaint did not attend the Hearing. Given the background to the submission of these complaints I deem it appropriate to anonymise this Decision. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I deem both complaints to be not well founded. (CA-00071073-001 and CA-00071073-002.) |
Dated: 01/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Key Words:
Complaint not well founded |