ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057001
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Charif Maizez | Lar Kelly Construction Limited |
Representatives | Self-represented |
|
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00069298-001 | 14/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/06/2025 & 04/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint.
On the 14th of February 2025 the Complainant presented a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). This complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 3rd of June 2025 initially as an in-person hearing but it was subsequently converted to a remote hearing at the Complainant’s request. A WRC appointed interpreter, and the Complainant were present for the remote hearing. The Respondent did not attend the remote hearing. I adjourned the hearing on the basis that it could not be established if the Respondent was on notice of the remote hearing. The complaint was rescheduled for an in-person hearing on the 4th of September 2025. The Complainant attended the hearing. The WRC was notified minutes before the hearing that the interpreter booked for the hearing by the WRC could now not attend. I spoke with the Complainant. He confirmed that while his English was not perfect, he could understand me and converse in English. I was satisfied I could clearly understand the Complainant and that the Complainant could understand and converse with me. The Complainant stated he wished the hearing to proceed without an interpreter as he could not take another day off work. The Respondent did not attend the rescheduled hearing.
A search of the Companies Registration Office showed that the Respondent (‘Lar Kelly Construction Ltd’ as per the complaint form) was dissolved on the 29th of October 2004. I asked the Complainant where he had got the Respondent details. He showed me the CORE website on his mobile phone and the Respondent’s name and address. He confirmed that these were the details for his employer. I pointed out the status of the Respondent. The Complainant stated that he had missed this detail. I asked the Complainant if he had any other details in relation to the Respondent. The Complainant outlined that the Respondent had contacted him via Facebook and that they had conversed via WhatsApp. The Complainant agreed to meet the Respondent at a specified location on four dates. The Complainant physically worked four days for the Respondent at different locations having been collected by the Respondent. The Complainant outlined that he was to be paid €140 cash per day. He had no documents, payslips or any other detail in relation to the Respondent, other than a page on Facebook which did not display the company name.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant agreed to work for the Respondent for cash (at the request of the Respondent). He worked four days for the Respondent. He was told to wait at named locations on a fifth and sixth day, but the Respondent did not turn up to collect the Complainant. The Complainant is claiming six days’ pay (a total amount of €840). |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. There was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent, a registered limited company listed on the CRO as ‘Dissolved’ as of the 29th of October 2004. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Respondent named on the WRC complaint form was dissolved at the time of the alleged breach of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and referral of the complaint to the WRC. On the basis the Respondent entity, as referred to the WRC, is dissolved and no longer exists, I find I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I decide I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. |
Dated: 11/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
Key Words:
No show Respondent. |