ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00059591
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Adam McDonagh | 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-00072258-001 | 10/06/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00072258-002 | 10/06/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00072258-003 | 10/06/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00072258-004 | 10/06/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00072258-005 | 10/06/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00072258-006 | 10/06/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00072258-007 | 10/06/2025 |
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.
His salary was outlined in his contract of employment and was €60,000. From January 2025 his salary was not fully paid. On the 7th of May 2025 he was made redundant. He was not paid the 3 months notice period provided for in his contract of employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant attended the hearing and made detailed written submissions and provided oral evidence under affirmation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Complaints under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 These claims relate to alleged breaches of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act which prohibits deductions from wages unless certain specific criteria are met. 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 salary was €5000 a month. CA-00072258-001 The Complainant’s January 2025 salary was not paid until the 3rd of February. There was a deduction of €1500 from this payment with the justification given that there had been an overpayment in December. The Complainant accepted that there had been a payment of €6500 to him in December but it was unclear why this occurred and assumed it was a bonus. In the circumstances it is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent overpaid the Complainant in December, and he was entitled to recoup the overpayment from January’s payroll. CA-00072258-002 The Complainant was only paid €3000 for February. €2000 of his salary was not paid. At this point the CEO had said to him that the Company was low on cash and had discussed the possibility of the Complainant continuing in part-time work. The Complainant engaged in these discussions, but no conclusion or decision was reached and he continued to work a 40 hour week. In the circumstances it is reasonable to conclude that a there was deduction and the Respondent has failed to establish that it was in compliance with the act. CA-00072258-003 The Complainant was only paid €750 for March. €4250 of his salary was not paid. At this point the Respondent had issued communications to all staff indicating that all staff would only be paid at 30% of salary. The Complainant did not consent to this. The Complainant engaged in discussions with management but no conclusion or decision was reached and he continued to work a 40 hour week. In the circumstances it is reasonable to conclude that a there was deduction and the Respondent has failed to establish that it was in compliance with the act. CA-00072258-004 The Complainant was given notice of termination on the 4th of April 2025. The letter indicated he would be terminated as of the 15th of April. However, after he appealed the decision the CEO confirmed by way of email on the 16th of April that he would continue to be an employee while the appeal was ongoing. He then sent an email on he following day indicating the decision to make him redundant was paused. Despite remaining as an employee the Complainant received no payment for April. In the circumstances it is reasonable to conclude that a there was deduction and the Respondent has failed to establish that it was in compliance with the act. CA-00072258-005 The Complainant was not terminated until the 7th of May when the CEO wrote to the Complainant and confirmed his dismissal. He was not paid the €1150.66 owing to him from the 1st to 7th of May. This sum is calculated in accordance with his contract which provides that his salary accrues day to day at a rate of 1/365. In the circumstances it is reasonable to conclude that a there was deduction and the Respondent has failed to establish that it was in compliance with the act. CA-00072258-006 The Complainant was entitled to notice of 3 months as per his contract of employment. His termination letter confirmed he should be paid PILON and other payments on cessation but sought to stretch out the payment over 10 months subject to the Complainant signing some sort of compromise agreement. The Respondent did not take any further action after they confirmed his dismissal on the 7th of May and did not make any payments to him after that date. The Complainant did not sign any such agreement. In the circumstances it is clear the Complainant was not paid the notice he was entitled to and was properly payable under this act. Complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (“UDA”) CA-00072258-007 The Complainant has the requisite service to come under the general protection at Section 6(1) of the UDA. Which states: Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. As such the act provides a presumption that the dismissal is unfair unless the Respondent can demonstrate substantial grounds. The Respondent did not attend the hearing but the Complainant did furnish their correspondence outlining that they had put him at risk of redundancy on the 20th of March and then confirmed he was being made redundant on the 4th of April. The Complainant also provided the correspondence from his appeal which stretched from the 11th of April to the 7th of May. The Respondent had confirmed he was still an employee for this period. Their final letter of termination indicated that the company was ceasing operations and that all non-founder roles had ceased. Section 6(4) of the Act does provide that Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following: ….(c) the redundancy of the employee. The Complainant accepts that the Respondent was in some serious financial difficulty. However, he disputes that his dismissal was fair and in compliance with the act. His role was misidentified as only dealing with Games operations whereas he had a much more general tech development role. The CEO recognised this and discussed the possibility of the Complainant moving into a more business development focused role which the Complainant supported. The Complainant’s evidence was that this move was vetoed by the COO who the Complainant was told did not want to work with him and the Complainant understands did not like him. Section 6(7) of the UDA provides that: Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so—(a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal. On the basis of the above evidence the Respondent did not engage with the Complainant appropriately or take reasonable actions to avoid redundancy. Financial Loss The Complainant was employed a month after his dismissal on almost an identical income, when benefits are taken into account. He was unemployed for a month but should have been paid his notice for this time. He would expect that he will be able to secure a more senior role before long as he had to take a step back in his career to make ends meet. In the circumstances and on the basis of his being awarded his notice pay in CA-00072258-006 above I am not satisfied that he has any financial loss arising from his dismissal. Section 7(1)c.ii of the UDA provides that if the employee incurred no such financial loss, payment to the employee by the employer of such compensation (if any, but not exceeding in amount 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated as aforesaid) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. Having regard to all the circumstances I award the Complainant €4602 which is four week’s remuneration calculated in accordance with his contract of employment. |
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.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00072258-001 I find that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00072258-002 I find that the complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €2000. CA-00072258-003 I find that the complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €4250. CA-00072258-004 I find that the complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €5000. CA-00072258-005 I find that the complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €1150.66. CA-00072258-006 I find that the complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €15,000. CA-00072258-007 I find that the complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €4602. |
Dated: 31-10-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|