ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060483
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Milorad Ilic | Phelan Woodcraft Limited |
Representatives | Self-Representative | No Appearance |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00073283-001 | 09/07/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00073283-002 | 09/07/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00073283-003 | 09/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/08/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 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 appeared in person along with an interpreter for assistance. It was his complaint that he did not receive his redundancy payment, minimum notice payment nor did he receive his full wages in the sum of €8,752.
Documentary evidence was received and relied upon at the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
It was the Complainant’s submission that his last day of work with the Respondent was 20 December 2024 but when he returned to work on 13 January 2025, he was handed a letter advising him of his redundancy. To date he has not received his redundancy payment despite continuously working with the Respondent since 1 June 2018. The Complainant’s also referred a complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 wherein he stated he did not receive payment in lieu of notice. Finally, the Complainant set out the difficulties he had with his employer in terms of receiving his wages on time and in full. It was his evidence that he regularly received less than the amount due and/or there was a delay in the payment of his wages. It was his evidence that he made several attempts to speak with his manager but to no avail. At all times he hoped that matter would be resolved hence the delay in referring the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission. It was his submission that the sum of €8,752 was due to him in wages in addition to the payment in lieu of notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
After waiting for a reasonable period of time there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. Every effort was made to communicate with the Respondent via email, registered post and telephone. Therefore, I am satisfied the Respondent was on notice of the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00073283-001 I allow the Complainant’s appeal pursuant to Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended) based on the undisputed evidence presented at the hearing. CA-00073283-002 I find the complaint is not well founded where the minimum notice is provided for under CA-00073283-001. CA-00073283-003 The first consideration is whether the complaint’s referred to the Workplace Relations Commission within the time frame provide for in Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. Section 41 (6) provides: - “(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.” The period of time may be extended to 12 months where the Complainant can demonstrate reasonable cause. The Complainant received notice on 13 January 2025. He referred his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 9 July 2025. While it is accepted that he raised the issue of his wages throughout his employment with the Respondent, the fact that there was just under a 6-month delay in referring the complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission cannot be ignore. This is particularly relevant where he was given notice of termination of employment in January 2025. Therefore, in the absence of reasonable cause why the Complainant waited almost 6 months before referring the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission, the only period that can be considered is from 8 January – 13 January 2025. During this period, it was the Complainant’s evidence he did not receive any payment or paid annual leave. Consequently, 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 complaints 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.
CA-00073283-001 I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant a redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended) calculated on the basis of the following information. The Complainant commenced employment on 01 June 2018 The Complainant’s received notice on 13 January 2025. The Complainant’s employment terminated on 10 February 2025 (to account for the Complainant’s minimum notice period). The Complainant was paid €741.00 gross per week based on a 39-hour week. CA-00073283-002 I find the complaint is not well founded where the minimum notice is provided for under CA-00073283-001. CA-00073283-003 Redress is provided for under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991:- “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 weekimmediately preceding the date of payment, or (b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.” I accept the undisputed evidence of the Complainant. I find he is entitled to compensation in the sum of €1,741 in accordance with Section 1 (b) (i) the definition of wages. |
Dated: 11th of August 2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
|
