ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058422
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Shabbir Ahmed | ICTS (Ireland) Ltd |
Representatives |
| Hugh Hegarty 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-00071056-001 | 24/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/08/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
The Complainant has brought a complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 and where such a 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. 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.
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 24th April 2025 by way of a workplace relations complaint form. In general term, I can consider contraventions of the Acts which are alleged to have occurred within the six-month period prior to that date. |
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 9th of July 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. The email was sent on the 10th of July 2025 From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant seeks to establish that his employer had deducted some element of the wages due to him contrary to the Payment of Wages Act. I understand that the Respondent intended defending the within complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent entity was present at the hearing date in the person of FM who is the Managing Director of the Company/Respondent entity. The Respondent had also engaged a HR consulting practice to assist with its presentation and defence. A submission on behalf of the Respondent was received in August of 2025. The Respondent rejects that there has been any breach or contravention of the Complainant’s legislative entitlements and rejects there has been any unlawful deduction or non-payment of monies due to the Complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As noted, the Complainant did not attend and having waited for half an hour on the morning of the hearing I advised the Respondent that this matter would be decided on the basis of the Complainant not showing up and giving evidence substantiating his allegation. It subsequently came to light that the Complainant had communicated with the Office of the WRC two days before the hearing (on a Saturday afternoon at 2pm) at which time the Complainant sent an email stating: Dear Sir / Madam Total I had hearing of ADJ00058422 & ADJ00057680 ADJUDICATION AT 12:30. I worked last night and I fell asleep. My phone alarm did not help. I am very sorry. Can I get a new date please. Regards Shabbir Ahmed Bizarrely, an almost identical email was received on the morning of the hearing (albeit after the time allocated to the hearing). This read: Dear Sir / Madam Today I had hearing of ref ADJ00058422 & ADJ00057680 ADJUDICATION AT 12:30 in Lansdownehouse Dublin 4. I worked last night and I fell asleep. My phone alarm did not help. I missed it. I am very sorry. Can I get a new date please. Regards Shabbir Ahmed The Complainant did not make himself available to explain how two almost identical emails stating that he had missed the hearing date/time had been sent on the date of the hearing and also two days before the date of the hearing. I will put it no further than to suggest that it is unusual. The Complainant did not attend and therefore I did not hear any evidence from the Complainant substantiating the complaints made against the Respondent.
|
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00071056-001 - The complaint herein is not well founded and fails.
|
Dated: 02nd September 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|