ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056184
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jamie Clarke | Dermot Walsh Glazing Limited |
Representatives |
| Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
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-00068329-001 | 23/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00068329-002 | 23/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00068329-003 | 23/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00068329-004 | 23/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00068329-005 | 23/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00068329-006 | 23/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00068329-007 | 23/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00068329-008 | 23/12/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/07/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following 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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the hearing and submitted its written responses to the complainant’s case. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by the complainant alleging breaches of the above statutes and was referred to me for investigation. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing. I am satisfied that the complainant consented to receiving correspondence by email and was sent notice in writing to the address provided on the complaint form of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held. 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 and I decide accordingly. |
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.
For the reasons set out above Complaints CA‑00068329-001 to 008 inclusive are not well founded. |
|
Dated: 13/02/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
‘No Show’ by Complainant |