ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057189
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Rory Girven | Six Star Hospitality Management Limited |
Representatives | Self-Represented | No Appearance |
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-00069490-002 | 22/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00069490-003 | 22/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00069490-004 | 22/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/11/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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 commenced Employment on 4th November 2019. At all relevant times the Complainant’s role was described as that of “Line Engineer”. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly payment of €984.00. The Complainant’s employment terminated on 9th February 2025.
On 22nd February 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaints to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that the Respondent failed to discharge his salary for a number of months. The Respondent did not issue a submission contradicting this claim and did not attend the hearing as scheduled.
A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 18th November 2025. This hearing was held in person at the Mullingar Courthouse, Co. Westmeath.
The Complainant issued an extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submission was supported by sworn evidence on the part of the Complainant.
No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings. |
Summary of the Complainant’s Case:
By submission and in evidence, the Complainant submitted that the Respondent failed to pay his salary for the final three months of his employment. The Complainant raised this matter internally and sought to rectify the complaint by way of the Respondent’s internal processes. Despite these efforts, the full amount of unpaid wages, calculated by the Complainant to the value of €12,798.00, remained unpaid on the date of the hearing. |
Summary of the Respondent’s Case:
As set out above, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing as scheduled. Having reviewed the file, it is apparent that the Respondent was properly notified of the time, date and venue of the hearing. In such circumstances, whereby the Respondent did not seek to adjourn the hearing, and no explanation was received in respect of their non-attendance thereafter, the mater proceeded in their absence and the findings below will be based on the Complainant’s evidence only. |
Findings and Conclusions:
By submission, and in evidence, the Complainant submitted that the Respondent failed to discharge his wages for the final three months of his employment. The Complainant submitted that the total of unpaid wages on the date of termination of employment came to €12,798.90. In this regard, Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, defines “wages” as “any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including…any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise” In the matter of Marek Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd [2019 No. 83 MCA], McGrath J stated that when considering complaints under the present Act, “Central to the Court’s analysis must be the concepts of wages properly payable and the circumstances in which there is a deficiency in respect of those such payments”. Having regard to the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, it is apparent that he was entitled to a payment of a monthly salary of €4,266.30. Again, having regard to the Complainant’s uncontested testimony, it is apparent that the Respondent failed to discharge this monthly salary for the final three months of the Complainant’s employment. In these circumstances, I find that the Respondent made an illegal deduction from the Complainant’s wages, and his complaint is deemed to be 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-00069690-002 Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act I find that the complaint is well-founded. Regarding redress, I award the Complainant the sum of €12,798.90 in compensation. CA-00069690-002 Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act In circumstances whereby the subject matter of this complaint is captured and compensated in the complaint listed above, I find that the same is not well-founded. CA-00069690-002 Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act In circumstances whereby the subject matter of this complaint is captured and compensated in the complaint listed above, I find that the same is not well-founded. |
Dated: 17-02-2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Wages, non-payment, non-appearance |