ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058991
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Philip Connolly | Airforce H&V Ltd (in liquidation) |
Representatives |
| Eric Madden and Padraic O'Malley of JW Accountants |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00071720-001 | 20/05/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00071720-002 | 20/05/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015 | CA-00071720-003 | 20/05/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
This matter was initially called to hearing on the 6th of November 2025 with only CA-00071720-001 under the redundancy payments act listed. The Complainant attended the hearing and the Respondent did not. At that hearing it became clear that the complaint form submitted by the Complainant on the 20th of May 2025 contained complaints related to outstanding payments other than redundancy and non-compliance with the Construction SEO. It also contained an error in identifying the Respondent’s owners as the Respondent and the Respondent as the trading name.
As such the Complainant requested that these complaints be recognised and that the Respondent was properly identified on the case file. I adjourned to facilitate that request and to ensure that the Respondent was on notice of all three complaints. The Respondent’s liquidators attended the subsequent hearing.
Background:
The Complainant was a sheet metal supervisor working for the Respondent HVAC firm from 17th of June 2019 until the business ceased trading in May 2025. The Respondent went into liquidation and their liquidators have endeavored to pay employees any sums owing to them but have had to rely on the various insolvency schemes provided for by the state. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation. He initially did not receive and redundancy payment or payment of final salary, notice and accrued leave. However, the liquidator did later source payment of the redundancy and the other sums up to the limits of the insolvency payment schemes. The Respondent was under the Construction SEO as a firm which built and installed HVAC systems as such the Complainant was entitled to minimum pension contributions paid to the Construction Worker Pension Scheme (“CWPS”). In May 2025 he was shocked to discover that the CWPS was stopping his death in service benefit as they had not been receiving contributions from the Respondent. He engaged with the CWPS and found out that the Respondent had been withholding payments, including his contributions and the AVCs he had been making voluntarily. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s liquidators provided detailed written submissions ahead of the hearing outlining their work trying to get the Complainant and his colleague paid what they were owed. There are unfortunately a number of creditors who have been left short by the Respondent and while they had obtained some payments from the department of social protection to cover these sums, these schemes are subject to limits. They are working with the CWPS to obtain a detailed overview of the monies not paid to the pension scheme and they will submit a further claim to the DSP once they have that information. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 CA-00071720-001 The Complainant accepts that he has now received the redundancy lump sum owing to him. Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00071720-002 The Respondent has accepted that the following payments were properly payable to the Complainant on cessation but were not paid; arrears in wages of €6393.78, accrued holiday pay of €775.78 and minimum notice of €4262.52. These unlawful deductions totalled €11432.08. The liquidators successfully applied to the insolvency payment scheme but were only able to recover just over half the outstanding wages due to the limits applied by that scheme. They paid the Complainant €6408 less lawfully deducted taxes in October 2025. €5024.08 remains owing to the Complainant from the unlawful deductions. Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015 CA-00071720-003 The SEO for the Construction Sector was established by S.I. No. 455 of 2017 and has continued to be updated by SIs up to SI 620 of 2024 which provides for minimum pension contributions and sick pay scheme contributions. The Complainant’s evidence supports the Respondent coming under the definition of a building firm as described by the SEO. The evidence of the Complainant, supported by emails he has submitted to the WRC and the Respondent’s liquidators own submissions, was that the Respondent, in the last 7 months of his employment, took the Complainant’s contributions and did not pay them over to the scheme, nor did they pay the contributions owed by them. The SEO was contravened. Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 states that where an Adjudication Officer finds that an SEO has been contravened in relation to a worker they may require the employer to pay to the worker compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 104 weeks’ remuneration. The Complainant earned €1065.62 per week. Given the importance of these schemes both to a workers old age and the potential for sickness at work I am of the view that the worker should be paid 12 weeks compensation for the beach of the act. I understand the Respondent has ceased trading and as such there are no wider industrial relations considerations, such as them potentially undercutting compliant employers, which are relevant. |
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.
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
CA-00071720-001 I find the complaint not well founded. CA-00071720-002 I find the complaint well founded and direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant €5024.08 less any lawful deductions for tax. CA-00071720-003 I find the complaint well founded and direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant €12787.44 in compensation. |
Dated: 1st April 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|