ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060254

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Alex Timms	Sam Catering Ltd t/a The Thatch Pub

Representatives

Self-Represented

No Appearance

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-00072939-001	30/06/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00072939-002	30/06/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00072939-003	30/06/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00072939-005	30/06/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/01/2026 and 02/04/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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.

Background:

The Complainant attended in person. He outlined his complaints relating to non-payment of wages and failure to adhere to the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and failure to provide terms and conditions of employment. Documentary evidence was presented and relied upon at the hearing.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant, Mr. Alex Timms was employed as a Chef at Respondent’s premises in Co. Laois. His employment commenced on 6 January 2025 and ended on 22 June 2025. During his employment, he worked a 40‑hour week and was paid weekly, with a gross weekly wage of €1,057.69.

CA‑00072939‑001 – Payment of Wages Act 1991

The Complainant stated that his outstanding wages fell due on 24 June 2025 and were not paid.

This was broken down in his weekly for the week of 3 – 9 February 2025 and the sum of €50 less in his wages from 27 May 2025, 3 June 2025, 10 June 2025, 19 June 2025 and €70 on 30 June 2025.

The Complainant presented Revenue records which did not correlate with the wages lodged in his bank statements.

The total sum was €1,327.69 gross.

CA‑00072939‑002 – Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (Annual Leave / Holiday Pay)

The Complainant asserts that he did not receive his paid annual leave/holiday pay entitlements for the period worked. He notes that his two weeks (10 days) holidays had accumulated since January but were neither taken nor paid on termination.

CA‑00072939‑003 – Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (Public Holiday Entitlements)

The Complainant states that he did not receive his statutory public holiday entitlements during the course of his employment. This included the February, St Patrick’s Day, Easter, May and June Public Holidays.

CA‑00072939‑005 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

The Complainant states that he did not receive a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment, despite requesting it on multiple occasions.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at either hearing.

Findings and Conclusions:

The first hearing opened on 14 January 2026 but was adjourned where I was not satisfied the Respondent was not notified correctly. Furthermore, Mr Muldowney’s son advised that the Respondent was not aware of the hearing date and sought an adjournment to allow for a new hearing date and provided the business address. Mr Muldowney advised that his father had retired.

The second hearing notice was sent by registered post.

After waiting a reasonably period of time at the hearing, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. The hearing proceeded in its absence.

CA‑00072939‑001 – Payment of Wages Act 1991

Based on the undisputed evidence together with the documentary evidence presented by the Complainant, I find the complaint is well founded.

CA‑00072939‑002 – Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (Annual Leave / Holiday Pay)

I find the complaint is well founded.

Section 27 (3) of the 1997 Act (as amended) provides redress:

“(3) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of a relevant provision shall do one or more of the following, namely:

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision,

(c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment.”

CA‑00072939‑003 – Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (Public Holiday Entitlements)

I find the complaint is well founded.

CA‑00072939‑005 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

I find the complaint is well founded.

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‑00072939‑001 – Payment of Wages Act 1991

The complaint is well‑founded and therefore, Section 6 of the 1991 Act must be considered.

“6. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4C or 5 as respects a deduction made by an employer from the wages or tips or gratuities of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding—

(a) the net amount of the wages, or tip or gratuity as the case may be (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that—

(i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or

(ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,

(b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.”

The Complainant earned a gross weekly sum of €1,057.69, the sum in which the Complainant is entitled pursuant to Section 6 (1) (a) (i). The Complainant is entitled to twice that amount which equates to the net some of €2,115.38 pursuant to Section 6 (1) (b).

CA‑00072939‑002 – Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (Annual Leave / Holiday Pay)

I find the complaint is well founded.

Section 27 (3) of the 1997 Act (as amended) provides:

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision,

(c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment.”

In the circumstances, I consider compensation to be the most appropriate form of redress. In determining the amount of compensation, regard has been given to the Respondent decision not to attend the hearing despite the request for an adjournment.

For these reasons, I award compensation in the amount of €2,115.38, the equivalent of two weeks’ remuneration, as being just and equitable in the circumstances.

CA‑00072939‑003 – Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (Public Holiday Entitlements)

I find the complaint is well founded.

Again, compensation is the most appropriate form of redress.

Section 27 (3) of the 1997 Act (as amended) also applies in this claim. I award compensation in the amount of €2,115.38, the equivalent of two weeks’ remuneration, as being just and equitable where the Respondent’s breach related to five public holidays.

CA‑00072939‑005 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

I find the complaint is well founded.

Section 7 (2) (d) is the most appropriate redress where the Complainant is no longer employed with the Respondent:

“(d) order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.”

I am awarding the Complainant three weeks' remuneration, totalling €2,115.38, as just, and equitable given the circumstances. The Complainant was unaware of his terms and conditions of employment, leading to a dispute over his working hours entitlements It has been further considered that the Complainant did request a copy of his contract but again it was not furnished to him.

Dated: 02-04-2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer

Key Words: