ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058414
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Francisco Saratt | Midtown Kitchen & Bar |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
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-00070913-001 | 17/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
This matter was heard by way of a remote hearing on the 29th September 2025 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.
I received and reviewed documentation from both parties prior to the hearing.
An interpreter was engaged by the WRC to assist the Complainant and was in attendance at the hearing.
The Respondent was in attendance and was represented by David Redmond and Gordon Farrell.
At the time the hearing was to commence, it was apparent that there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant. I verified that the Complainant was on notice of the date, time and venue of the hearing and waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. Attempts were made by the WRC to contact the Complainant by email and by telephone. The Complainant did not attend and I opened the hearing.
Background:
The Complainant referred a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Respondent disputed that there was an unlaw deduction from the Complainant’s wages and submitted that all wages due and owing to the Complainant were paid to him. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the hearing to advance that a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 had taken place. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submitted a full defence to the Complainant’s complaint and attended the hearing and was prepared to present evidence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In making these findings, I have considered the submissions made at the hearing as well as the documentation submitted by the parties in advance of the hearing. At the time the hearing was to commence, it was apparent that there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant. I verified that the Complainant was on notice of the date, time and venue of the hearing and waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. Attempts were made to contact the Complainant in advance of the hearing by email and on the morning of the hearing by telephone to no avail. The Complainant did not attend the hearing. The Respondent submitted the relevant pay slips to the WRC in advance of the hearing. The Respondent was in attendance and confirmed that the Complainant’s wages were paid to him. I therefore find that the complaint is not well-founded. |
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 decide that the complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is not well-founded. |
Dated: 03-10-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
Key Words:
|