ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00065738
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Gonzalo Reyes | Silver Horizon Limited T/A Papaz Bistro |
Representatives | Did not attend | Bilal Faizi, Director |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00079896-001 | 22/01/2026 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00079896-002 | 22/01/2026 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/07/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Procedure:
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 as amended 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.
At the time the hearing was to commence, it was apparent that there was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Complainant. Correspondence informing the Complainant of the arrangements for the hearing issued on 19 June 2026 to the email address provided by the Complainant. I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the date, time and venue of the hearing to investigate the complaints. There has been no communication from the Complainant indicating any difficulties with attending the hearing or requesting a postponement. I waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. As of the date of the drafting of this decision there has been no communication from the Complainant explaining his non-attendance.
The Respondent attended the hearing.
At the adjudication hearing, the Respondent was advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised. The parties are named in the heading of the decision. For ease of reference, the terms of Complainant and Respondent are used throughout the body of the decision.
The Respondent was also advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation. The legal perils of committing perjury were explained.
I have taken the time to carefully review all the submissions and evidence both written and oral. I have noted the respective positions of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or found superfluous to the main findings. I am required to set out ‘such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision’ per MacMenamin J. in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63.
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute.
Background:
The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 18 June 2025. His employment terminated on 19 January 2026.
On 22 January 2026, he referred the above claims to the Director General of the WRC alleging that · the Respondent has not paid him or paid him less than the amount due to him, pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and · he did not receive his paid annual leave entitlements, pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
The Respondent rejects the claims. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Complainant at the adjudication hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent attended the adjudication hearing and was available to defend the claim. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant referred his claim to the Director General of the WRC on 22 January 2026. There was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Complainant at the hearing. There has been no communication from the Complainant indicating any difficulties with attending the hearing or seeking a postponement. I am satisfied the Complainant did not make contact with the WRC either immediately before the hearing, during the hearing or in the intervening period since the hearing. As of the date of this decision there has been no further communication received from, or on behalf of, the Complainant. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaints are not 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.
CA-00079896-001 – I declare this complaint to be not well founded. CA-00079896-002 – I declare this complaint to be not well founded. |
Dated: 11/08/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Key Words:
Non-attendance - |