ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058012
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Cristian Gaspar | The Roadhouse En Route Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00070425-001 | 31/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00070425-002 | 31/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00070425-003 | 31/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00070425-004 | 31/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/09/2025, 08/01/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
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. Parties were advised in advance of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted. Hearings were heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Where submissions from parties were received they were exchanged. The complainant gave evidence under affirmation at the hearing on 19/09/2025 and did not attend the second hearing of 08/01/2026 and for the respondent did not attend either hearing dates.
Background:
The complainant submitted that he did not receive minimum notice, monies properly payable and annual leave when the respondent shut down unexpectantly.
The complainant did not attend the second date of the hearing and the respondent did not attend either dates of the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00070425-001
The complainant submitted he was left with no job and got no notice and was told 2 hours before closing time that the boss was shutting down the business. He is owed for annual leave, notice period, and public holidays and other monies owed for hours worked.
The complainant’s evidence on the first date of the hearing was that he was manager of a restaurant and was on €18 euro per hour and only received pay slips intermittently but was happy enough working there and worked approximately 45 hours weekly. About 2/3 months before the restaurant closed he noticed problems such as they did not receive vegetables from the normal place and had to purchase vegetables in a supermarket. The milkman was also owed monies and he asked what was going on. The complainant wanted to go on holidays and on the Friday he was told to go ahead and book his holiday. On the Sunday 23/03/2025 he was told that the manager needed to talk to him and the restaurant would be shut down that same day at 4pm. He was in the middle of service and he was told with 2 hours to go and when he queried why he was only told then, he was asked would he have preferred if the respondent waited till the end of shift. The complainant asked about holidays and was told there was no money. When he said he would go to a solicitor €1,100 was transferred as wages to him. He submitted that he was owed monies from June/July 2024 whereby he worked 127 hours and was paid for 100 hours. He submitted that he was owed 2 weeks’ pay and accepted that he received €1,100 and that he did not receive minimum notice and therefore, was owed 1 weeks’ pay and was owed annual leave of €1,196.10.
The complainant did not attend the second hearing date of 08/01/2026 to further advance his complaints. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00070425-001
The respondent did not attend either date of hearings. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00070425-001
The complainant submits that he did not receive monies that are properly payable. The respondent did not attend either date of hearing. The complainant attended the hearing on 19/09/2025 and gave evidence.
Enquiries were made to the complainant by the WRC on 24/11/2025 and 02/12/2025 asking whether his complaints had already been dealt with within decision Adj-00057922 against the same respondent following a separate hearing on 05/08/2025. The complainant did not respond and was invited to a hearing on 08/01/2026 so that further enquiries could be made and the complainant did not attend.
I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the second hearing to further enquire into the complaints would be held and did not attend.
In the circumstances, I find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00070425-002
The complainant submitted he was left with no job and got no notice and was told 2 hours before closing time that the boss was shutting down the business. He is owed for annual leave, notice period, and public holidays and other monies owed for hours worked.
The complainant’s evidence on the first date of the hearing was that he was manager of a restaurant and was on €18 euro per hour and only received pay slips intermittently but was happy enough working there. About 2/3 months before the restaurant closed he noticed problems such as they did not receive vegetables from the normal place and had to purchase vegetables in a supermarket. The milkman was also owed monies and he asked what was going on. The complainant wanted to go on holidays and on the Friday he was told to go ahead and book his holiday. On the Sunday he was told that the manager needed to talk to him and the restaurant would be shut down that same day at 4pm. He was in the middle of service and he was told with 2 hours to go and when he queried why he was only told then, he was asked would he have preferred if the respondent waited till the end of shift. The complainant asked about holidays and was told there was no money. When he said he would go to a solicitor €1,100 was transferred as wages to him. He submitted that he was owed monies from June/July 2024 whereby he worked 127 hours and was paid for 100 hours. He submitted that he was owed 2 weeks’ pay and accepted that he received €1,100 and that he did not receive minimum notice and therefore, was owed 1 weeks’ pay and was owed annual leave of €1,196.10
The complainant did not attend the second hearing date of 08/01/2026 to further advance his complaints. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00070425-002
The respondent did not attend either date of the hearings. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00070425-002
The complainant submits that he did not receive minimum notice. The respondent did not attend and I am satisfied that the respondent is on notice and the failure to attend is unexplained.
Enquiries were made to the complainant by the WRC on 24/11/2025 and 02/12/2025 asking whether his complaints had already been dealt with within decision Adj-00057922 against the same respondent following a separate hearing on 05/08/2025. The complainant did not respond and was invited to a hearing on 08/01/2026 so that further enquiries could be made and the complainant did not attend.
I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the second hearing to further enquire into the complaints would be held and did not attend.
In the circumstances, I find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00070425-003
The complainant submitted he was left with no job and got no notice and was told 2 hours before closing time that the boss was shutting down the business. He is owed for annual leave, notice period, and public holidays and other monies owed for hours worked.
The complainant’s evidence was that he was manager of a restaurant and was on €18 euro per hour and only received pay slips intermittently but was happy enough working there. About 2/3 months before the restaurant closed he noticed problems such as they did not receive vegetables from the normal place and had to purchase vegetables in a supermarket. The milkman was also owed monies and he asked what was going on. The complainant wanted to go on holidays and on the Friday he was told to go ahead and book his holiday. On the Sunday he was told that the manager needed to talk to him and the restaurant would be shut down that same day at 4pm. He was in the middle of service and he was told with 2 hours to go and when he queried why he was only told then, he was asked would he have preferred if the respondent waited till the end of shift.
The complainant asked about holidays and was told there was no money. When he said he would go to a solicitor €1,100 was transferred as wages to him. He submitted that he was owed monies from June/July 2024 whereby he worked 127 hours and was paid for 100 hours. He submitted that he was owed 2 weeks’ pay and accepted that he received €1,100 and that he did not receive minimum notice and therefore, was owed 1 weeks’ pay and was owed annual leave of €1,196.10
The complainant did not attend the second hearing date of 08/01/2026 to further advance his complaints.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00070425-003
The respondent did not attend either date of the hearings. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00070425-003
The complainant submits that he did not receive public holidays entitlement owed. The respondent did not attend and I am satisfied that the respondent is on notice and the failure to attend is unexplained. The complainant’s evidence was that he did not receive benefit of 8 public holidays which he worked.
Enquiries were made to the complainant by the WRC on 24/11/2025 and 02/12/2025 asking whether his complaints had already been dealt with within decision Adj-00057922 against the same respondent following a separate hearing on 05/08/2025. The complainant did not respond and was invited to a hearing on 08/01/2026 so that further enquiries could be made and the complainant did not attend.
I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the second hearing to further enquire into the complaints would be held and did not attend.
In the circumstances, I find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00070425-004
The complainant submitted he was left with no job and got no notice and was told 2 hours before closing time that the boss was shutting down the business. He is owed for annual leave, notice period, and public holidays and other monies owed for hours worked.
The complainant’s evidence was that he was manager of a restaurant and was on €18 euro per hour and only received pay slips intermittently but was happy enough working there. About 2/3 months before the restaurant closed he noticed problems such as they did not receive vegetables from the normal place and had to purchase vegetables in a supermarket. The milkman was also owed monies and he asked what was going on. The complainant wanted to go on holidays and on the Friday he was told to go ahead and book his holiday. On the Sunday he was told that the manager needed to talk to him and the restaurant would be shut down that same day at 4pm. He was in the middle of service and he was told with 2 hours to go and when he queried why he was only told then, he was asked would he have preferred if the respondent waited till the end of shift.
The complainant asked about holidays and was told there was no money. When he said he would go to a solicitor €1,100 was transferred as wages to him. He submitted that he was owed monies from June/July 2024 whereby he worked 127 hours and was paid for 100 hours. He submitted that he was owed 2 weeks’ pay and accepted that he received €1,100 and that he did not receive minimum notice and therefore, was owed 1 weeks’ pay and was owed annual leave of 66.45 hours totalling €1,196.10.
The complainant did not attend the second hearing date of 08/01/2026 to further advance his complaints. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00070425-004
The respondent did not attend either date of the hearings. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00070425-004
The complainant submits that he did not receive annual leave entitlement owed. The respondent did not attend and I am satisfied that the respondent is on notice and the failure to attend is unexplained.
Enquiries were made to the complainant by the WRC on 24/11/2025 and 02/12/2025 asking whether his complaints had already been dealt with within decision Adj-00057922 against the same respondent following a separate hearing on 05/08/2025. The complainant did not respond and was invited to a hearing on 08/01/2026 so that further enquiries could be made and the complainant did not attend.
I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the second hearing to further enquire into the complaints would be held and did not attend.
In the circumstances, I find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint. |
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-00070425-001 I find the complaint is not well founded. CA-00070425-002 I find the complaint is not well founded. CA-00070425-003 I find the complaint is not well founded. CA-00070425-004 I find the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 03rd of February 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Annual leave, public holidays, monies properly payable, minimum notice. |