ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055266

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Derek O' Sullivan	Roc Doc Health Check Limited

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00067335-001	12/11/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/02/2025 and 20/01/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath BL

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 an employee can present a complaint or complaints of any perceived contravention by the Employer of any of the Acts (Statutes) contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015. Any such complaint (usually presented in the format of a workplace relations complaint form) is made to the Director General of the WRC. The said Director General can then refer the complaint to the Adjudication services. It is in these circumstances that this matter has come before me - an Adjudication Officer engaged by the Adjudication division of the WRC - to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or complaints made. Where appropriate, I hear the parties’ oral evidence, and I can give consideration to any supporting evidence provided by witnesses or relevant documentation.

The Complainant has referred a matter for adjudication as provided for under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 and the referral has been made within six months of the date on which this claim accrued to the Complainant. In particular the complaint is that the Employee did not receive the appropriate Statutory Minimum notice (or payment in lieu) on termination of the employment and as outlined in Section 4of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973. Where the Adjudicator finds that the section was contravened by the Employer in relation to the Employee who presented the complaint, the Adjudication officer can direct that the employer concerned pay to the Employee compensation for any loss sustained by the Employee by reason of the contravention.

Section 4 imposes an obligation on the employer who seeks to terminate the contract of employment to give a minimum period of notice. The period of notice is to be calculated in accordance with the length of continuous service. This starts at thirteen weeks and goes up to fifteen years. Even where payment has been accepted in lieu of Notice the date of termination shall be deemed to be the date on which the notice would have expired.

The Adjudication Officer must decide if there has been a contravention of the Act and if satisfied that there has been a contravention may include a direction that the employer concerned pay to the employee compensation for any loss sustained by reason of the contravention.

Background:

This matter was dealt with over two days. On the 12th of February 2025 this matter came on for hearing. It became clear that The Respondent Company went into liquidation just after the Complainant had issued his complaint form. The Complainant had talked with the Liquidator, and it was hoped that matters may well be resolved without further input by the WRC. The Complainant had intended bringing a separate complaint as against the Liquidator to formalise his footing and the matter was then resolved on that basis. The matter was postponed pending resolution.

Nothing further was heard form the parties and despite requests made by the WRC for an updated position no final application was made. In the circumstances this matter was re-listed.

This hearing was to be conducted remotely as provided for in the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party would have been prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 19th of November 2025 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means when filling out his complaint form.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent a company now thought to be in liquidation was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 19th of November 2025 - and sent to the address provided.

Findings and Conclusions:

I make no finding in circumstances where the Complainant has not attended to give evidence on his own behalf.

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.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00067335-001 – the complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the Complainant has not attended to give evidence making out his entitlement.

Dated: 12.02.2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath