ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060962
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Danny Lynch | Shelton Contracting Ltd |
Representatives | Self Represented | Owners Daughter |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
|
|
|
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 | CA-00073751-002 | 25/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
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.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The Hearing too place completely in public and the required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties. Full cross examination of Witnesses was allowed.
Background:
The Complainant was employed from April 3rd 2025 to July 18th 2025 as a Tractor/Truck Driver. His employment ceased in disputed circumstances. The Complainant submitted a complaint that he was not paid the National Minimum Wage, |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant worked as a Tractor/Truck Driver during silage season. His employment ceased in disputed circumstances. The Complainant made a generic claim that he had not been paid the National Minimum Wage. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent denied the complaint and submitted details of hours worked and net pay paid to the Complainant for the duration of the employment and advised that taxes due from the employment had been paid directly to Revenue. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Law Section 10 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 states that “An employer shall select as a pay reference period for the purposes of this Act a period not exceeding one calendar month”. Section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 provides that: “(1) Subject to subsection (2), an employee may request from his or her employer a written statement of the employee's average hourly rate of pay for any pay reference period (other than the employee's current pay reference period) falling within the 12-month period immediately preceding the request. (2) An employee shall not make a request under subsection (1) in respect of any pay reference period during which the hourly rate of pay of the employee was on average not less than 150 per cent calculated in accordance with section 20, or such other percentage as may be prescribed, of the national minimum hourly rate of pay or where the request would be frivolous or vexatious. (3) A request under subsection (1) shall be in writing and identify the pay reference period or periods to which it relates. (4) The employer shall, within 4 weeks after receiving the employee's request, give to the employee a statement in writing setting out in relation to the pay reference period or periods— (a) details of reckonable pay components (including the value of all forms of remuneration) paid or allowed to the employee in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 1, (b) the working hours of the employee calculated in accordance with section 8, (c) the average hourly pay (including the value of forms of remuneration other than cash payments) actually paid or allowed to the employee, as determined in accordance with section 20, and (d) the minimum hourly rate of pay to which the employee is entitled in accordance with this Act. (5) A statement under subsection (4) shall be signed and dated by or on behalf of the employer and a copy shall be kept by the employer for a period of 15 months beginning on the date on which the statement was given by the employee.” At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant confirmed that he had not requested a pay reference period statement as required under section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act. Section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 deals with disputes about entitlement to the minimum hourly rate of pay. It stipulates: “(1) For the purposes of this section, a dispute between an employee and his or her employer as to the employee's entitlements under this Act exists where the employee and his or her employer cannot agree on the appropriate entitlement of the employee to pay in accordance with this Act resulting in an alleged underpayment to the employee. (2) The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission shall not entertain a dispute in relation to an employee's entitlements under this Act and, accordingly, shall not refer the dispute to an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015— (a) unless the employee— (i) has obtained under section 23 a statement of his or her average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period, or (ii) having requested the statement, has not been provided with it within the time limited by that section for the employer to supply the information, and a period of 6 months (or such longer period, not exceeding 12 months, as the Adjudication Officer may allow) has not elapsed since that statement was obtained or time elapsed, as the case may be”. Findings It is clear that Section 24 makes it mandatory for an employee to request of their employer a statement of their average hourly rate of pay in respect of a relevant pay reference period, in order to pursue a dispute about his/her entitlements under the Act. As the Complainant gave evidence he did not request a statement as required by section 23 of the Act, which by virtue of section 24 is mandatory, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on this complaint. In Mansion House Ltd v Izquierdo MWD043, the Labour Court commented as follows in relation to the approach of the WRC Adjudicator: “For the sake of completeness, the Court should point out that where a claimant has failed to request a statement in accordance with Section 23(1), the appropriate course of action is to decline jurisdiction without prejudice to the claimants right to re-enter the same complaint having complied with the said section….”. I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
|
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.
I decide that I do not have the statutory power to investigate the complaint and it is not well founded. |
Dated: 08-04-2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Key Words:
Minimum wage |
