ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00059487
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Adam Bartley | FGI Life Sciences, Ltd |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Ms A Curran of O'Mara Geraghty McCourt, Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00072202-002 | 07/06/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/12/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 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.
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 normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses present. The legal peril of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
The issue of anonymisation in the published finding of the WRC was considered by the Parties but not deemed necessary.
Background:
The issue in contention was a complaint by a Security & Data Privacy Analyst that he had not been paid, on the termination of his employment, his Statutory Minimum Notice, by the Respondent Employer - a Life Sciences Consulting Company. The employment began on the 1st of October 2024 and ended on the 21st of February 2025. The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been €45,000 per annum for a 40-hour week. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was Self Represented and gave an oral testimony in support of details on his original complaint form. His employment ended on the 21st February 2025. He maintained that he had not been paid proper Minimum Notice as required by the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. It was accepted that he had been paid in full for the entire Month of February. He maintained that as he had received no proper notice of his Dismissal - it had happened quite arbitrarily in a two-minute meeting. He was not afforded any opportunity to prepare for the meeting and had not been advised that his employment was in jeopardy. On these grounds he felt that a Notice Payment of one week’s pay was due. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent was represented by Ms Curran of O’Mara Geraghty McCourt, Solicitors. A written submission was provided and supported by an Oral Testimony. The Complainant was dismissed during his Probation Period. This was in keeping with his Contact of Employment - submitted in Evidence. He had been paid for the entire month of February. Agreed deductions for a flight cancellation and overtaken Annual Leave were made. The period from 21st to the 28th February 2025 was paid – being a week in lieu of notice. Pay slips were submitted in evidence. Accordingly, there can be no valid notice complaint. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
3:1 Legal issues The ending of the employment during a Probation Period has been considered at length in O’Donovan v Over -C Technology Ltd [2021] IECA 37. Suffice to say that the ending of employment here was conducted in accordance with the Law. The Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 was complied with. The Complaint had in excess of 13 weeks service and was due one week’s pay in lieu of notice. He was paid this Notice Pay. Detailed Pay Slip evidence was presented under Oath. Accordingly, the Adjudication finding has to be that the Complaint cannot be seen as legally Properly Founded. It has to be deemed not successful.
|
4: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 & Section12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
CA: 00072202-002
The Complaint is deemed Not Properly Founded. It cannot succeed.
Dated: 13th April 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Notice Pay on Termination. |