ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062032
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Aoife Kavanagh | Kelsey Donahoe |
Representatives | Self | Did not attend. |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000. | CA-00075305-001 | 10/09/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
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 matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.
The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.
While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Ms Aoife Kavanagh as “the Complainant” and to Ms Kelsey Donahoe as “the Respondent.” The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence on affirmation. She was accompanied by her mother in a supporting capacity. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. I waited a period time before commencing the hearing. There was no contact from the Respondent in relation to her non-attendance.
The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.
Background:
The Complainant responded to a job posted on a Facebook account by the Respondent. As part of the selection process the Complainant was invited to a trial on 28/08/2025. This lasted approximately 1.5 hours and she was not paid for this work. She submitted her complaint to the WRC on 10/09/2025. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation. She outlined that she replied to an advertisement which the Respondent had on a Facebook account. She contacted the Respondent who sent her a text message asking, “Are you able to come for a Trial Day?” The Complainant confirmed that she would and this was arranged for 28/08/2025. The Complainant attended the stables and was put to work with horses. She had to feed 20 horses and clean out a number of stables. This work lasted for 1.5 hours. She did not meet the Respondent during the trial but was asked to work with another worker. The Complainant gave evidence that she did not hear anything further from the Respondent and when she saw the job readvertised on Facebook she made contact with the Respondent. She asked for her payment and did not receive anything. Subsequent attempts by the Complainant to have her work paid for were ignored. She submitted a complaint to the WRC on 10/09/2025 seeking to be paid the minimum hourly rate for the 1.5 hours she worked which amounts to €20.25. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent or a representative on her behalf did not attend the hearing. There was no subsequent contact to explain her non-attendance. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant initially submitted her complaint seeking adjudication under the under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The correct redress is adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000. I am satisfied that there is no disadvantage or prejudice to the Respondent in amending the complaint form. The Law: The National Minimum Wage Act 2000 (the “NMWA”) modified all existing contracts of employment, collective agreements or legislative provisions insofar as they provide for less favourable remuneration than is provided for by the NMWA. The 2025 minimum hourly wage for those aged 20 and above was €13.50. Apart from the employment of close family relatives and the engagement of registered industrial apprentices, there is no exemption in law from the obligation to pay the national minimum hourly rate of pay. Therefore, national minimum wage rates apply to work experience placements, work trials, internships and any other employment practice involving unpaid work or working for room and board, regardless of the duration of the engagement. In this case the Complainant is entitled to be paid for the 1.5 hours in accordance with the rate prevailing at that time. Award: Section 26 of the NMWA provides: “(1) A decision of an adjudication officer in relation to a dispute in respect of the entitlements of an employee under this Act referred to the adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 may contain— (a) a direction to the employer to pay to the employee— (i) an award of arrears, being the difference between any amount paid or allowed by the employer to the employee for pay and the minimum amount the employee was entitled to be paid or allowed in accordance with this Act in respect of the period to which the dispute relates, and (ii) reasonable expenses of the employee in connection with the dispute, (b) a requirement that the employer rectify, within a specified time (not being later than 42 days after the date the decision is communicated to the employer) or in a specified manner, any matter, including the payment of any amount, in respect of which the employer is in contravention of this Act, or (c) both such direction and such requirement, as the adjudication officer considers appropriate.” |
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.
The complaint is well founded and order the employer to pay arrears of €20.25 and also the amount of €50.00 as reasonable expenses of the Complainant in connection with this matter and which amount I deem to be appropriate. I direct that this total amount of €70.25 is paid within 42 days of the date of this decision. |
Dated: 28/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Non-payment for work trial. |