ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056778
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ian Mintern | Standardaero Sac Components |
Representatives | Self-represented | James Cleary IBEC |
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-00068706-001 | 19/01/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
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.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant ant two witnesses for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation. The issue of jurisdiction as it applied to the cognisable period was brought up as a preliminary matter by the respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant confirmed that he lodged his complaint in January 2025 and that the bonus payment that was due to be paid in April 2025, three months after the complaint was lodged. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that the complaint related to a payment that was not due to be made in the cognisable period in accordance with the Act and submitted that it should fail on that basis. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant confirmed at the outset that his complaint related to a payment that did not fall to be paid during the six months prior to the lodgement of his complaint or prior to the termination of his employment by resignation. Accordingly, he has not identified a contravention of the Act that occurred prior to his having taken a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. On the basis of the foregoing, I 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.
Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 22/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Payment of Wages – no contravention of the Act at time of lodgement – not well founded |