ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058362
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Josh Murphy | Pure Oil Limited |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Self-Represented |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00070867-001 | 16/04/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00070867-002 | 16/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/10/2025
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 29th October 2024. At all relevant times the Complainant’s role was described as “general operative”. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly payment of €590. The Complainant’s employment was terminated on 14th April 2025. On 16th April 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaints to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that the Respondent failed to discharge his outstanding annual leave entitlement on the termination of his employment. He further submitted that the Respondent failed to pay his statutory notice. By response, the Respondent submitted that all annual leave entitlement was paid to the Complainant and that he was not entitled to a payment of statutory notice on circumstances whereby he was dismissed on the grounds of gros misconduct.
A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 13th October 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.
No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
By submission, the Complainant stated that he was approved for annual leave but did not receive payment in respect of the same at the relevant time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Complainant accepted that the did receive payment for this period of time shortly after referring the present complaint. Regarding the complaint in relation to notice, the Complainant submitted that was entitled to one week’s normal pay in circumstances whereby he worked in excess of 13 weeks for the Respondent. In answer to the Respondent’s submission, he denied that he committed gross misconduct in the course of his duties. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
By submission, the Respondent stated that the Complainant was paid for all annual leave taken in the course of his employment. Regarding the second complaint, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not entitled to a payment in respect of statutory notice in circumstances whereby he was dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct. In answer to a question posed by the Adjudicator, the representative for the Respondent accepted that they could not demonstrate such gross misconduct on his part. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Regarding the initial complaint, while the Complainant is correct in his assertion that the annual leave payment in question was not discharged on the date of the referral of the complaint, it is common case that the same was paid shortly thereafter. In these circumstances, I find that the initial complaint is not well-founded. Regarding the second complaint, the Respondent has submitted that the Complainant is not entitled to a payment of statutory notice in circumstances whereby his employment was terminated on the grounds of gross misconduct. In answer to a question posed by the Adjudicator, the representative for the Respondent accepted that they could not establish the basis for such a finding. In these circumstances, I find that the Complainant is entitled to statutory notice of one week’s pay, 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-00070867-001 Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act I find that the complaint is not well-founded. CA-00070867-002 Complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act I find that the complaint is well-founded. Regarding redress, I award the Complainant the sum of €590.00 in compensation. |
Dated: 11th February 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Annual Leave, Statutory Notice, Gross Misconduct |