ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057902
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Hisham Maddi | Sky Handling Partner Limited |
Representatives |
| Andrea Montanelli Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
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-00070288-002 | 26/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00070288-003 | 26/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8(1) of the European Communities (Working Conditions of Mobile Workers Engaged in Inter- Operable Cross-Border Services in the Railway Sector) Regulations 2009 - S.I. No. 3 | CA-00070288-004 | 26/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/08/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
The Complainant has brought two complaints concerning alleged contraventions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015. When any such complaint is presented, the Director General is empowered to refer that complaint forward for adjudication by an Adjudication Officer pursuant to Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. Following the said referral,it is incumbent on the assigned Adjudicator to make all relevant enquiries into the complaint. This will include hearing oral evidence, considering submissions made and receiving other relevant evidence.
In particular, the Complainant herein has referred the following complaint:
A complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage.
There is also a complaint that the employer has paid the Complainant less than the amount due where there is an obligation under section 5 Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act that an employer must pay wages that are properly payable to an employee.
Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.
In addition to the foregoing the Complainant has referred a complaint concerning the hours of work.
Background:
This hearing was to be conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was to be conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.
Had evidence been given it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came intoeffecton the 29th of July 2021, and which said legislation accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence.
The Complaint herein was brought to the attention of the WRC on the 26th of March 2025 by way of a workplace relations complaint form.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 18th of June 2025 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means when filling out his complaint form. From the complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant seeks to establish that in the course of his short employment, his Employer had not fully paid him and had not ensured that he get breaks. I understand that the Respondent intended defending the within complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was represented by the business representative group known as Peninsula. The Respondent provided me with a full written submission just before the hearing. The Respondent was represented by two members of the HR team, prepared to give evidence on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent rejects the complaints made and stood ready to vigorously defend the allegations. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As the Complainant did not attend, and I was not is in a position to assess the merits of his claims. |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00070288-002 – the complaint herein is not well founded and fails. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00070288-003 – the complaint herein is not well founded and fails. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8(1) of the European Communities (Working Conditions of Mobile Workers Engaged in Inter- Operable Cross-Border Services in the Railway Sector) Regulations 2009 - S.I. No. 3 CA-00070288-004 – the complaint herein is not well founded and fails. |
Dated: 24/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|