ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00067449
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mr Igor Cardoso | Brambles Deli Café Limited [amended on consent at hearing] |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Mr Joseph L. Bolger ESA Consultants |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 | CA-00082082-001 | 23/03/2026 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/08/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
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. The hearing was conducted in person in Lansdowne House. The WRC provided an interpreter to assist with the running of the hearing.
While the parties are named in the Decision, I will refer to Mr Igor Cardoso as “the Complainant” and to Brambles Deli Café Limited as “the Respondent”.
The Complainant attended the hearing and he presented as a litigant in person. The Respondent was represented by Mr Joseph L Bolger ESA Consultants. In attendance on behalf of the Respondent were Mr Ciaran Reid and Mr Chris Doyle.
I explained the procedural changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. An Adjudication Officer, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 in April 2021. No application was made by either party that the hearing be heard other than in public.
Evidence was given under affirmation by the Complainant. The interpreter took the interpreter oath.
I have given careful consideration to the submissions provided and to the evidence adduced at hearing by the parties. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held “…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”.
Furthermore, evidence was put before me during the course of the hearing, some of which was not relevant to the complaints before me. I am required to set out ‘such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision’ per MacMenamin J in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63. In my decision, therefore, I have focused on the evidence which I deem to be relevant to this complaint.
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute. I can confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into this complaint.
The Respondent representative raised a preliminary jurisdictional issue. I reserved my position on the preliminary issue and proceeded to hear the substantive case.
Background:
These matters came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 23/03/2026. The Complainant alleges contravention by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statute in relation to his employment with the Respondent. The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 13/08/2026.
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 12/07/2022 with such employment terminating by way of resignation on 20/02/2026.
The Complainant was in receipt of a weekly salary of €702.00 gross for which he worked 45 hours per week.
It is the Complainant’s case that his representative was not properly consulted in relation to a proposed collective redundancy which affected him.
This claim is denied by the Respondent on the basis that no redundancy arose.
The Respondent filed written submissions and supporting documentation. The Complainant filed a written submission in response to the Respondent’s submission.
Upon enquiry the Complainant acknowledged this was an AI assisted document. Much of the narrative in the aforesaid document refers to matters that are irrelevant to the instant complaint as presented under the impleaded legislation in circumstances where there were no redundancies. The Complainant filed supporting documentation with his complaint initially which has been reviewed and considered. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00082082-001 Overview of WRC complaint form I am seeking legal advice regarding my recent employment situation. I worked at Eaton 6W (Brambles), in Terenure, for over four years. During this time, I spent three years and six months under a General Employment Permit. On December 22nd, the restaurant closed permanently without any prior notice. As a result, I was required to take all of my accrued annual leave immediately, without any prior planning or agreement. At the end of this leave period, the company reassigned me to a central distribution facility in Tallaght. This new location was significantly farther from my home, and the working environment was hostile, aggressive, disrespectful, xenophobic, and at times even racist. I was subjected to harsh criticism regarding my English and my way of working. Additionally, my pay, which had always been fixed, was changed to an hourly rate without any prior communication. I was also required to carry out duties outside of my role, such as performing deep cleaning of the bakery production line, which became a recurring task. It was also evident that employees who were not European were treated differently. Over time, I became a problem for the company, as they did not seem to know how to handle my situation. These circumstances led to psychological distress and emotional strain, which resulted in a medically certified leave of absence. I eventually requested the termination of my contract. Following this, I received a letter from the company threatening that if I pursued this matter further, I would have to face consequences. I would greatly appreciate your advice on how to proceed in this situation and to understand my rights. Summary of direct evidence and cross examination of Complainant Started as a kitchen porter and moved on to chef. Worked there for 4 years many times more than 45 hours. In November 2025 the head chef got sick and he (the Complainant) assumed the position. He had been sous chef up to that. Chef de partie was his job but he was mostly sous or head chef. There was a rumour that the café was going to close. He asked the manager in October / November he said it wasn’t closing. He started in February in Tallaght and submits he stayed for the month of February. The environment was hostile and oppressive; the head chef criticised his work and his English. Upon enquiry submits he made no complaints to the Respondent. He had a burn out crisis moment and submitted a cert from 11 February 2026 and did not return to the workplace. Complainant submits he did not receive previous notice he was being made redundant. Complainant submits he was the only person that was relocated to Tallaght. In cross examination the Complainant accepts there was a meeting on 11 November 2025 with the Respondent to discuss head chef role and pay. The Complainant accepts that he requested that his wages be changed to an hourly rate. Agrees it was more beneficial to him to be paid hourly. Agrees he has worked in other locations in the past including Tallaght and accepts the location clause in his contract. Accepts that he accepted the head chef role and that his wages increased. Accepts that he worked in Tallaght in January. Accepts that redundancy was never discussed. Accepts at hearing that two people from Terenure went to Tallaght. On enquiry the Complainant submits he resigned because of the environment and the distance. The Complainant confirms the Respondent asked him not to resign. The Complainant when asked confirms there were no redundancies. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00082082-001 Respondent preliminary issue. There were no collective redundancies. The AO does not have jurisdiction to hear an application under this Act and the complaint should be dismissed. The Respondent submits there is no case to answer in circumstances where the complaint referred to the WRC on 23/03/2026 was expressly brought under section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 and concerned an alleged failure to provide information in the context of a collective redundancy. The Respondent submitted that the circumstances of the case did not involve a collective redundancy and that the Protection of Employment Act 1977 therefore had no application. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00082082-001 In conducting my investigation and in reaching my decision, I have reviewed all relevant submissions and supporting documentation presented. I have carefully considered the oral evidence adduced at hearing. I deemed it necessary to make my own inquiries into the complaint during hearing to establish and understand the facts and to seek clarification on certain matters. I note that the statutory provision relied upon by the Complainant, namely section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977, concerns collective redundancies. On the evidence before me, this was not a situation involving collective redundancies within the meaning of the Protection of Employment Act 1977. As section 11A applies in the context of collective redundancies, and as the Complainant did accept there were no redundances, the instant complaint discloses no cause of action under the Protection of Employment Act 1977. I am satisfied that the complaint referred under section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 discloses no cause of action under that Act and cannot ground jurisdiction. Accordingly, I find this this complaint as presented is misconceived as the Act provides for procedures on collective redundancies. There was no evidence presented that engaged the Protection of Employment Act 1977. For the reasons set out above 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.
CA-00082082-001 For the reasons set out above I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint. I decide this complaint as presented is not-well founded. |
Dated: 09.09.2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell