ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062497
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Bruno Marques Vicente | Liquid To Lips |
Representatives | N/A | N/A |
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-00076223-001 | 10/10/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
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 remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designates the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
On 10 October 2025, Bruno Marques Vicente (the “Complainant”) filed a Complaint Form with the WRC in which he alleged that “Liquid To Lips” (the “Respondent”) had breached the Payment of Wages Act 1991, as amended. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the Hearing. In a letter from the WRC dated 9 March 2026, the Complainant was informed of the details of the Hearing to take place on 30 March 2026. The same letter set out the procedure regarding postponement requests. The Complainant did not seek a postponement. On 25 March 2026, the Complainant was emailed details of the remote Hearing and asked to confirm participants’ details. The Complainant did not respond. On 27 March 2026, the Complainant was emailed log-in details for the remote Hearing. The Complainant did not respond. On 30 March 2026, the Complainant did not attend the Hearing. The WRC called and emailed the Complainant but there was no response. When the Complainant did not attend the Hearing, a grace period was allowed to enable the Complainant to attend or contact the WRC. He did not do so. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the Hearing. In a letter from the WRC dated 11 March 2026, the Respondent was informed of the details of the Hearing to take place on 30 March 2026. The same letter also set out the procedure regarding postponement requests. The Respondent did not seek a postponement and did not attend the Hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the Hearing but did not attend. I am also satisfied that the WRC made sufficient effort to contact the Complainant, who did not respond. The Complainant failed to attend the Hearing as scheduled and failed to present any evidence in support of his complaint. In the circumstances, I find that the complaint is not 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.
For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 24/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act 1991, Non-Attendance. |