ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00061423

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  10/06/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 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. This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359 of 2020, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The parties were advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation.  All participants who gave evidence were sworn in.  Both parties were offered, and availed of, the opportunity to cross-examine the evidence.

Background:

The Complainant contends that he was unfairly dismissed.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 30 November 2023 until 29 July 2025.  He was told on 29 July that there were no more hours for him.  On 15 July 2025 he was given a contract of employment signed by Joginder Singh.

The Complainant submitted the following document in support of his complaint:

During my employment with Spice Village, I was paid on a monthly basis, and my salary was based on Ireland’s minimum wage, calculated at approximately €13.50 per hour for 36 hours per week, resulting in an estimated gross monthly pay of around €1,944.00. However, this amount was not paid transparently or fully through standard payroll methods. I regularly received part of my wages via official bank transfer, while the remaining undocumented portion was paid either in cash or through personal bank account transfers, outside of the formal payroll system. These informal payments were made without payslips, making it difficult for me to confirm whether I was being paid fully or whether appropriate deductions for taxes and PRSI were applied. Throughout my employment, I consistently demonstrated dedication and flexibility by working six — and often seven — days a week, including during Irish public holidays such as bank holidays. I took on these shifts willingly and made personal sacrifices, including relocating to be closer to work, in order to support the business. I acknowledge that I did receive fair payment for the bank holiday shifts I worked, and this is reflected in my payslips. My intention in mentioning this is not to dispute the pay received for these days, but to highlight the level of commitment and reliability I brought to the role. At the time, I accepted the irregular payment structure out of necessity. As a non-EU worker dependent on this job for income and relying on a verbal promise of visa sponsorship, I did not feel empowered to challenge the payment method or raise concerns about undocumented wage practices. I feared repercussions such as reduced hours, verbal pressure, or loss of employment. Over time, I realized that the combination of undocumented payments, absence of clear payslips for all earnings, and a lack of transparency around entitlements contributed to a working environment that left me financially exposed and legally unprotected. This pattern — alongside the sudden reduction in my hours following a single sick day and the pressure I faced to resign — has led me to file this complaint. I respectfully submit this statement as part of my WRC submission. I am willing to provide supporting documentation, including bank statements for the partial bank transfers I received. Unfortunately, I do not have records for the cash payments, which were undocumented — and that itself highlights the need for fair review and intervention. 

The Complainant stated that he was asked to resign his employment but he texted the Respondent outlining his situation, asking that they extend his employment to allow him to work out his visa situation and then to provide him with a termination letter.

Following receipt of the Respondent’s submission the Complainant submitted a detailed document in response.  He refutes any allegations of misconduct and states that no disciplinary action or investigation was instigated on foot of the alleged incidents.

In relation to the circumstances of the termination of his employment, he submitted the following:

The Ending of my Employment

I am self-representing and do not claim legal expertise. I respectfully set out below a factual account of how my employment ended, and ask the Adjudication Officer to consider whether the procedures followed were fair and reasonable.

The following sequence of events is documented:

3 July 2025: I took one day of sick leave. I notified Mr. Bala of this by WhatsApp on the morning of 3 July 2025, citing fever. Mr. Bala responded by message, stating: "i will arrange for people to work in blessington for 5 days. And you rest until be good. I will sms you when you have to come thank you." Supporting WhatsApp screenshots are attached.

4 July 2025: Mr. Bala instructed me to attend on 10 July 2025. I requested additional shifts in between to cover expenses. No additional shifts were offered in that period.

• 10–11 July 2025: I was instructed by Mr. Bala to attend the Terenure branch rather than Blessington.
• 13 July 2025: Mr. Bala advised by WhatsApp that I had no shift that day and my next shift would be Monday. I asked about €82 still outstanding from my June salary. He undertook to address it.
• 14 July 2025: Mr. Bala confirmed by WhatsApp that I had shifts for Friday, Saturday and Sunday, 5 pm to 10 pm. I asked: "This days are confirmed to work right?" He replied: "Yes."
• 19 July 2025: Despite the prior confirmation, Mr. Bala wrote: "Amit bhai. You have off today brother. Please come tomorrow Sunday. Sorry for today," and added: "Sakchi come today brother so" — indicating another staff member was scheduled in my place that day. I queried this. I also raised the outstanding amount, calculated at €377, which I had requested in order to meet rent, electricity, and other expenses.
• 21 July 2025: The written contract was presented to me in the circumstances described in Section 3 above.
• 25 July 2025: I attended a shift at 5:30 pm following a same-day request from Mr. Bala.
• 26 July 2025: I sent Mr. Bala a contemporaneous summary of the shifts I had worked in July 2025 (1, 2, 11, 18, 19, 20, and 25 July — 36.5 hours at €13.50 per hour), with €82.40 from the June salary still outstanding, totalling €575.15.
• 27–28 July 2025: I communicated by WhatsApp seeking to continue working, at minimum until August 2025.
• 28 July 2025: Mr. Bala wrote: "Amit brother, how are you? Come to collect money anytime, brother. Thank you."

29 July 2025: Mr. Bala requested my IBAN by WhatsApp ("Can you send you revolut IBEN pls"). I provided it. A transfer described as salary was subsequently received in my personal account.

• 31 July 2025: I sent a WhatsApp message to Mr. Bala which is on the record. In that message I confirmed I had been informed that the company was no longer in a position to offer me working hours and that I had been asked to step down. I expressly requested that the company formally conclude my employment from its side rather than submit a resignation, on the basis that this would be the appropriate and cleanest way to close the matter. I did not resign.
• 31 July 2025: The Revenue record confirms my employment was ceased on this date.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Mr Rocky Singh appeared on behalf of the Respondent.  He submitted a document summarising his position as follows:

1. Employment Role and Qualifications:

(I) Mr. Amit was employed as general staff for Spice Village and not as a manager as set out in his claim. Mr. Amit had no prior management experience prior to commencing his employment with Spice Village.

(II) As you will note in Mr. Amits CV, his prior experience relates to that of working in a Circle K service station and has no restaurant experience during his time here in Ireland, which would make him an unsuitable candidate for the position of manager. The Spice Village was not recruiting a manager and the position advertised was for general staff.

(III) I note that Mr. Amit has submitted a reference letter as part of his submissions however the signature on the reference is not mine and I have no recollection of providing this to Mr. Amit. Therefore, I must call into the question the validity of the reference submitted.

2. Employment Terms and Hours:

• Mr, Amit was provided with an employment contract, which he signed voluntarily and any claim purporting to coercion or improper conduct in this regard are strongly refuted. I have attached a copy of Mr. Amits contract of employment for reference.
• Mr. Amit was employed on a part-time basis at 20 hours per week, which is documented in the attached weekly rosters. Mr. Amit has signed the weekly rosters attached.
• Mr. Amit was paid his wages {weekly] through the company books.

3. Workplace Conduct During Mr. Amit’s employment, a number of concerns arose regarding his conduct and behaviour in the workplace. Mr. Amit was given multiple verbal warnings in relation to:

• His behaviour towards fellow staff members
• His interactions with customers
• His failure to follow reasonable instructions in a busy working environment

These concerns are supported by a written statement provided by a former employee, H who outlined the negative impact Mr. Amit’s behaviour had on staff morale and daily operations. Despite these verbal warnings, there was no sustained improvement in Mr. Amit’s conduct. His behaviour continued to create a difficult working environment for staff and impacted the efficient running of the business. In addition, there was an incident involving Mr. Amit and another employee (Mr. N chef), where Mr. Amit acted in an inappropriate and confrontational manner.

4. Company Status and Ownership

Spice Village Blessington has been permanently closed for two months. The business was sold to Mr. Joginder Singh on 31/08/2025. Spice Village Terenure and Spice Village Blessington are entirely separate businesses and are run independently of each other. There is therefore no connection between the two companies and any attempt by Mr. Amit to connect them is incorrect.

• According to official documentation provided by Mr Amit to me, Mr. Amit’s G1 Stamp permission expired on 20/08/2025 As a result of this, Mr. Amit is no longer permitted to work until such time as his Visa is renewed. In my opinion, the timing and nature of these complaints suggest they may be motivated by an attempt to influence his immigration status rather than by any genuine grievance against the Company. Furthermore, Mr. Amit attended the Spice Village Terenure with a female companion on 17/09/2025 and in a hostile manner both demanded that his Visa be sponsored by the Company to ensure that it was renewed and his working status protected. As the WRC will appreciate, CV footage has not been handed over to Mr. Amit given the circumstances.

In my opinion the claims made by Mr. Amit are inconsistent and I have provided the relevant supporting documentation to support this. I would be grateful if the WRC could review the documentation provided in order to conclude this matter. If you require any clarification on the above or if any additional documentation is required please do not hesitate to hesitate to contact me.

Mr Singh stated that he the business was operated on franchise.  Blessington was closed and all staff moved to Terenure.  

Findings and Conclusions:

There were many issues raised by both parties in the hearing.  In the narrative of his complaint, the Complainant refers to unfair dismissal, constructive dismissal, Safety Health & Welfare at Work Act, Industrial Relations Act, Working Time Act, references to working on public holidays and a long range of other issues concerning immigration and payment of wages issues.  I note that on 8 September 2025, the WRC wrote to the Complainant specifically stating in bold print that the WRC should be alerted if other issues for which the specific complaint is not raised.  Mr Singh, who appeared for the Respondent made many points about the Complainant’s conduct at work, and made points about the ownership of the business.  This complaint was submitted under the Unfair Dismissals Act and it is to that Act I address my findings. 

Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act provides

6.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

The Complainant’s employment was ended on 29 July 2025.

His evidence was that he was dismissed on 29 July 2025 when the General Manager told him the decision of management was to give him no more hours.  His hours had been reduced in July and he was called in by management to sign a contract on 21 July 2025.      While much of the evidence was disputed by Mr Singh, I note that Mr Singh expressed strong criticism and dissatisfaction with the Complainant’s performance.  It is well established that in the event of an employer being dissatisfied with an employee’s conduct or performance, it is incumbent upon the employer to invoke disciplinary procedures.  Statutory Instrument S.I. 146/2000 sets out the code by which such matters should be dealt with, i.e. the right of an employee to know the charge against them, the right to be heard and the right to appeal in cases of disciplinary sanctions including dismissal.  In this instant case, no such procedures were invoked.                                  

In the circumstances I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

I find compensation to be the appropriate remedy and I award the Complainant the sum of €2,080 compensation.

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.

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.

Based on the findings and reasons above, I have decided that the complaint of unfair dismissal is well founded.  I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €2.080 compensation within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

Dated:   7th August 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: