ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058167

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	John Kane	NOW Training & Employment Enterprises CLG T/A NOW Group

Representatives

self

Carly Turner, Head of People

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000	CA-00070226-002	19/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00070226-003	19/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00070226-004	19/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00070226-005	19/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.	CA-00070226-006	19/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00070226-007	19/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00070226-009	19/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00070226-012	19/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00070226-013	19/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00070226-015	19/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00070226-016	19/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00070226-017	19/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003	CA-00070226-018	19/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003	CA-00070226-019	19/03/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/05/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s). The first hearing was held on the 8th of January 2026 and to facilitate the adjudication based on the large number of complaints the Respondent was asked to put in a more detailed written response after hearing the evidence of the Complainant. The hearing then reconvened in May.

Background:

The Respondent is a social enterprise that supports adults with intellectual disabilities, autism and neurodiverse conditions into employment. It was established in Belfast in 2001. In 2023 it began setting up a new service in Dublin, initially under short term funding and from a series of short-term premises. In September 2024 it secured a permanent HSE contract and a permanent base in Smithfield.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Specialist Tutor from 10 June 2024 to 4 December 2024. He was paid a salary of €38,000 per year for a 37.5-hour week and was paid monthly.

The Complainant was absent from work from 14 October 2024. The Respondent dismissed him by letter sent by email on 4 December 2024 on the ground that he had not followed its absence notification procedures. He appealed on 18 December 2024, and the appeal was heard on 15 January 2025.

The outcome of the appeal was not stated in the papers or put in evidence. Nothing turns on it, as the complaints are decided on grounds that do not depend on the appeal outcome.

The Complainant referred his complaints to the Commission on 19 March 2025. I heard the case by remote hearing on 5 May 2026. All documents relied on were opened at the hearing.

The Complainant attended and represented himself. Carly Turner, Head of People, attended the Respondent.

The Complainant is a lay litigant. He was not clear on why he chose certain complaints, and some of the complaints selected are contradictory. He was more focused on airing his frustration at what he saw as a disorganised and chaotic start up.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant represented himself. He selected a large number of complaints on a manual complaint form received by the Commission on 19 March 2025. His case, taken from the form and as presented at the hearing, was as follows.

He said he was not paid correctly over a period of months. He said he holds all his payslips and every email sent about his wages, including an email accepting that he had not been paid properly since he started.

He said the assignment was disorganised and that he was placed in a difficult position without support. He was employed to work in Smithfield but was moved to East Wall. At one placement he was subjected to a sectarian comment. He reported this to senior management and said nothing was done about it.

He said that he and a colleague were directed to remove furniture, 26 chairs and 16 desks, from premises in Dublin 1 and to move it to East Wall. He said this was not work he was employed to do and that he had no manual handling training. He said he displaced a disc in his back doing this work.

On his dismissal, he said that when he became ill he told his employer. When he could not reach his line manager he contacted the person he understood to be next in line, and he provided medical certificates. He said it was unfair to dismiss him for not contacting his line manager appropriately in those circumstances. He seeks compensation. He has not taken up new employment since the dismissal.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent provided a written submission dated 8 January 2025. Its case was as follows.

On pay, the Complainant earned €38,000 per year for a 37.5 hour week, about €19.49 per hour, which was well above the national minimum wage of €12.70 per hour at the time. When the Complainant raised pay concerns on 5 December 2024 it investigated and found he had been on an emergency tax code since he started. It explained this to him on 6 December 2024 and gave him a breakdown and his payslips. Its breakdown records unpaid leave at his request in July, August and the week of 21 to 25 October 2024, sick pay at full and half pay under its scheme, and unpaid sick leave from 28 October 2024. It accepts he was underpaid in September 2024, when he was paid the same as August in error, leaving six days of pay owed which was subsequently paid.

On notice, it said one week of pay in lieu of notice was due under Section 9 of the contract, was processed in December 2024 and is shown on the payslip.

On the dismissal, it relied on a timeline of the absence from 14 October 2024. The Complainant did not attend work that day and did not make contact. The line manager and a colleague tried to reach him and HR advised contact with his next of kin. Over the following days he indicated he had been involved in a serious incident and that his work phone had been stolen. A crime reference number was later provided. Sick pay was paid and then exhausted. Letters of 22 and 25 October 2024 confirmed agreed unpaid leave, attached the Absence Management Policy, asked him to make contact and warned that he could be treated as absent without leave. Medical certificates were received covering 28 October to 11 November 2024 and a further three weeks from 11 November 2024. A hospital admission letter received on 21 November 2024 was not accepted as certification. A letter of 22 November 2024 reminded him of the notification procedure and proposed a welfare meeting. The absence was uncertified from 29 November 2024. Calls and texts on 3 and 4 December 2024 went unanswered. The Respondent dismissed him by email on 4 December 2024 with details of an appeal. The appeal was received on 18 December 2024 and heard on 15 January 2025.

The Respondent said it acted with empathy and flexibility throughout, but it has a duty of care to staff and participants supported by its policies, the absence procedures were not followed, and it was obliged to act in line with its obligations.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant is a lay litigant. His complaint form selected overlapping complaints under several Acts arising from the same facts. The positions of the parties on each complaint are set out below. My findings follow.

The Complainant described being subjected to a sectarian comment at one placement, which he reported to senior management. I find that the Respondent took that complaint seriously and followed up on it, and soon after moved from that location.

CA-00070226-002: National Minimum Wage Act 2000

The Complainant says he did not receive the national minimum rate of pay. The Respondent says he was paid €38,000 per year for a 37.5-hour week, about €19.49 per hour, which was above the national minimum wage of €12.70 per hour at the time. This complaint is not well founded as the hourly rate of pay was above the minimum rate of pay that applied at the time.

CA-00070226-003: Payment of Wages Act 1991

The Complainant says he was not paid correctly over a period of months and holds payslips and emails confirming this. The Respondent says the pay position is explained by an emergency tax code applied since he started, periods of unpaid leave at his request, and the operation of its sick pay scheme. It accepts he was underpaid in September 2024, when he was paid the same as August in error, leaving six days of pay owed. This shortfall was attributable to an error of computation, and it was corrected and paid in the December 2024 payroll, while the Complainant was still within the employment relationship for pay purposes. Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides that a deficiency in or non-payment of wages is not treated as a deduction where it is attributable to an error of computation. As the shortfall arose from such an error and was corrected and paid, there was no unlawful deduction. The complaint is not well founded.

CA-00070226-004: Payment of Wages Act 1991, pay in lieu of notice

The Complainant says he did not receive the appropriate payment in lieu of notice. The Respondent says one week of pay in lieu of notice was due under Section 9 of the contract, was processed in December 2024 and is shown on the payslip. The Complainant received one week’s pay in lieu of notice in the December 2024 payroll run. The complaint is not well founded.

CA-00070226-005: Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, notification of change

The Complainant says he was not notified in writing of a change to his terms of employment. He says he was employed to work in Smithfield but was moved to East Wall and was directed to carry out duties he was not employed to do. The Respondent describes the succession of premises as part of setting up a new service and says this was communicated to employees from the outset. Its written submission does not address whether written notification of any change was given. The contract of employment addresses place of work at section 6. It states that the organisation currently operated from a temporary premises and that the Complainant was required to work at other locations as dictated by the needs of the business. That clause is not an open-ended right to change the place of work and its exercise requires consultation with the employee. The move to East Wall was a change to a term of employment and no written notification of the change was given as required by Section 5 of the Act. I find that this was a technical breach and because it was a start-up and the nature of the work I award no compensation. The complaint is well founded.

CA-00070226-006: Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, probation

The Complainant says a period of probation was applied to his contract in contravention of the Act. The contract of employment was in evidence. The contract provides for a 6-month probation period at clause 9 of the contract. The employee’s contract was ended for failing to comply with the organisation’s absence policy. The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Specialist Tutor from 10 June 2024 to 4 December 2024. He was paid a salary of €38,000 per year for a 37.5-hour week and was paid monthly. The 6-month probation period runs from the 10th of June to the 9th of December 2024. There is no breach of this term even if it was extended arising from the absence from work and failure to follow the Respondent’s notice policy. The complaint is not well founded.

CA-00070226-007 and CA-00070226-009: Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

The Complainant says he was unfairly dismissed. He says that when he became ill he told his employer, that when he could not reach his line manager, he contacted the person he understood to be next in line, and that medical certificates were provided. The Respondent says the Complainant did not follow its absence notification procedures despite repeated contact, letters and warnings between 14 October and 4 December 2024, that the absence was uncertified from 29 November 2024, and that it dismissed him on 4 December 2024 in line with its policies. The employment ran from 10 June 2024 to 4 December 2024.

CA-00070226-009 was presented as a constructive dismissal complaint. The Complainant was dismissed and does not have the requisite service to bring the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 as amended. No exception to the service requirement was advanced by the Complainant or arose on the evidence.

I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaints; the complaints are not well founded and he was not unfairly dismissed.

CA-00070226-012 and CA-00070226-013: Redundancy Payments Act 1967

The Complainant says he did not receive a redundancy payment. He confirmed on the form that he had not applied to the Respondent or to the Department of Social Protection for a redundancy payment and that no redundancy certificate issued. The Respondent’s position is that the employment ended by dismissal connected to the absence process. As the Complainant was dismissed arising from his failure to adhere to the Respondent’s absence policy, he was not made redundant, which is an impersonal decision such as the need to restructure. The appeal for a redundancy payment fails and the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00070226-015, CA-00070226-016 and CA-00070226-017: Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973

The Complainant says he did not receive his statutory minimum notice or payment in lieu and did not receive his rights during a notice period. The Respondent says one week of pay in lieu of notice was paid in December 2024 and is shown on the payslip. These are duplicate complaints. He was paid his notice, and I determine that these complaints are not well founded.

CA-00070226-018 and CA-00070226-019: Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003

The Complainant says his employer failed to offer a written statement of objective grounds justifying the renewal of a fixed term contract or a contract of indefinite duration and applied a period of probation in a fixed term contract in contravention of the Act. The Respondent’s written submission does not address these complaints. The contract of employment was in evidence. The contract states that the Complainant was employed on a full-time permanent basis. He was not a fixed term employee within the meaning of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003, and the Act does not apply to his employment. 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(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

CA-00070226-002, National Minimum Wage Act 2000:

The complaint is not well founded. The Complainant’s hourly rate of pay was above the minimum rate that applied at the time.

CA-00070226-003, Payment of Wages Act 1991:

The complaint is not well founded. The pay position is explained by the emergency tax code, unpaid leave and the sick pay scheme. The September 2024 underpayment of six days was attributable to an error of computation and was corrected and paid in the December 2024 payroll. Under Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 a deficiency attributable to an error of computation is not treated as a deduction, and there was no unlawful deduction.

CA-00070226-004, Payment of Wages Act 1991:

The complaint is not well founded. The Complainant received one week’s pay in lieu of notice in the December 2024 payroll run.

CA-00070226-005, Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994:

The complaint is well founded. The place of work clause at section 6 of the contract is not an open ended right to change the place of work and no written notification of the change was given as required by Section 5 of the Act. The breach was technical and, given that the service was a start-up and the nature of the work, I award no compensation.

CA-00070226-006, Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994:

The complaint is not well founded. The contract provided for a six month probation period which ran from 10 June 2024 to 9 December 2024 and there was no breach of this term.

CA-00070226-007, Unfair Dismissals Act 1977:

The Complainant does not have the requisite service to bring the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 as amended. No exception to the service requirement was advanced by the Complainant or arose on the evidence. I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint and the complaint is not well founded and he was not unfairly dismissed.

CA-00070226-009, Unfair Dismissals Act 1977:

The Complainant was dismissed and did not resign, and he does not have the requisite service to ground the complaint under this Act. I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint and the complaint is not well founded and he was not unfairly dismissed.

CA-00070226-012, Redundancy Payments Act 1967:

The Complainant was not made redundant. He was dismissed arising from his failure to adhere to the Respondent’s absence policy. The appeal for a redundancy payment fails and the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00070226-013, Redundancy Payments Act 1967:

The appeal for a redundancy payment fails and the complaint is not well founded for the same reason.

CA-00070226-015, Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973:

The complaint is not well founded. The Complainant was paid his notice.

CA-00070226-016, Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973:

The complaint is not well founded for the same reason.

CA-00070226-017, Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973:

The complaint is not well founded for the same reason.

CA-00070226-018, Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003:

The complaint is not well founded. The Complainant was employed on a full time permanent basis and was not a fixed term employee within the meaning of the Act.

CA-00070226-019, Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003:

The complaint is not well founded for the same reason.

Dated: 18th of August 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton

Key Words:

National minimum wage; payment of wages; pay in lieu of notice; minimum notice; terms of employment; probation; fixed term work; redundancy; unfair dismissal; service threshold; absence procedure.