ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062012
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jonathan Ahearne | Irish Barber College Barbering |
Representatives | Did not appear and was not represented | Mr Aherne appeared as a Litigant in Person |
Complaint(s):
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-00074725-001 | 22/08/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
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 .
I have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral. 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 that minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals and only broad reasons need be given. I am required to set out such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision per Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63
The parties were put under notice of the decision in the Zalewski case, that their evidence would be heard under oath or affirmation and of the penalty for perjury. Accordingly, the witnesses were advised of the penalty for perjury
Additionally, the parties were informed that they would be afforded an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and the hearing was to be held in public; the parties offered me neither objection nor reason to have the hearing held in private.
For the Complainant the hearing was attended by Mr Aherne as a litigant in person, and he gave evidence under affirmation. No other witnesses were produced.
For the Respondent the hearing was unattended and the Respondent was unrepresented.
The parties were put under notice of the decision in the Zalewski case, that their evidence would be heard under oath or affirmation and of the penalty for perjury. Accordingly, the witnesses were advised of the penalty for perjury
Additionally, the parties were informed that they would be afforded an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and the hearing was to be held in public; the parties offered me neither objection nor reason to have the hearing held in private.
The hearing had been previously cancelled by the Commission where it appeared that the Respondent address given by the Complainant was their trading address rather than their legal address as set out on the Companies Registration Office website.
The Case officer contacted the Respondent by phone prior to the first postponed hearing and was informed that they would be present before hanging up abruptly. After that the Respondent did not take further calls that were attempted.
I am satisfied that the Respondent has received full notice of the hearing at both his legal address and trading. On the day of the second hearing, I waited 15 mins for him to attend before commencing the hearing. The hearing concluded 20 minutes later with the unopposed evidence of the Complainant, at which time the Respondent had still not presented to the Commission nor offered excuse nor apology for his absence. I have waited a further 48 hours to issue my decision should the Respondent have provided an excuse; none has been forthcoming.
I allowed the parties present to make representation to me and, where appropriate, I mad e my own enquiries. Having asked the attendees, and having satisfied myself, that I had heard all the relevant submissions put to me I formally closed the hearing
Background:
The complaint is brought under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Complainant states that the employer failed to pay:
The Complainant claims these wages were withheld following the giving of notice on 23 July 2025, despite repeated attempts to secure payment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted a complaint to the Commission on 22 August 2025. He states that he commenced employment on 10 June 2025 as an Instructor with the Respondent. The Complainant was paid weekly (€520 net) and worked 40 hours per week at the employer’s premises on Wicklow Street, Dublin 2. According to the Complainant, he was never placed “on the books” despite requesting this and was instead paid directly into his bank account. He reports receiving no training for the instructor role and alleges he was left alone with students from the outset. The Complainant states that he gave notice on 23 July 2025, informing the employer that 25 July 2025 would be his final day. He alleges that following this, the employer became aggressive, warned him not to attend the college without permission, and restricted his attendance to specific hours on 24 and 25 July. On the morning of 25 July, he was instructed not to attend work at all. The Complainant claims that he was due to be paid his weekly wage on 24 July 2025 but that no payment was received. He further states that wages from the week beginning 14 July and a “back week” from the start of his employment (week of 10 June) were also withheld. He reports making several attempts to contact the employer regarding non‑payment, without success. The complaint is brought under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, alleging that the employer failed to pay wages due the total amount of €1040.00 |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was Represented |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant has a series of WhatsApp that credibly appear to come from the Respondent that acknowledges that there are monies owing. Having heard from the Complainant under affirmation that he is owed €1040.00 by the Respondent in wages properly payable and this was not opposed by the Respondent in writing or in oral evidence I must conclude that the complaint is well-founded and direct the Respondent to make good on the €1040.00 owed to the Complainant |
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.
For the reasons set out above I find the complaint well-founded and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the unpaid wages to the amount of €1040.00 |
Dated: 30th April 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
Key Words:
|