Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Rory  Doogan

Aurora Mechanical And Electrical Ltd

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00071924-001

27/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00071924-002

27/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00071924-003

27/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00071924-004

27/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00071924-005

27/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00071924-007

27/05/2025

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

CA-00071924-008

27/05/2025

The Complainant was the Manager of the Respondent business which mainly focused on domestic electrician services such as boiler installation and retrofitting.

The Respondent ran into difficulties in 2023, due in part to the owner experiencing serious health difficulties. The Complainant was terminated on the 3rd of July 2024.

The Complainant attended the WRC and gave evidence under oath. He also supplied written submissions and payslips.

In 2023 the Complainant had reduced his working week to facilitate the downturn in the business. By the end of 2023 he was satisfied that the financial situation was obviously severe enough that he should leave but he was convinced to stay on the basis that new work and funds would be coming in.

From early 2024 there was not enough money to pay the Complainant’s salary as well as the other creditors and on the basis of this being paid later the Complainant agreed to defer his salary, annual leave and public holiday entitlements. He did so on the basis that he would be paid at a later date.

Over the course of 2024 other parties became involved in the business and the Complainant became more and more out of the loop. While the business was busy its finances continued to deteriorate.  On the 3rd of July the Complainant was frozen out and his access to email, systems and the bank account ceased. He understands that they have since ceased trading.   

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. A hearing notification was sent to their registered address but was returned undelivered. The WRC also sent emails to an email address supplied by the Complainant.

I am satisfied that in the circumstances that I should proceed to issue a decision.  

CA-00071924-001 – Redundancy Payments Act

Section 2 of the Redundancy Payments Act sets out that an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—

(a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed.

The Complainant began working for the Respondent on the 1st of February 2019. His employment ceased on the 3rd of July 2024. The Complainant was on short-time at the date of termination and for the purposes of this act his wages exceeded €600 per week.

The Respondent ceased trading and the Complainant lost his job. He clearly comes under the scope of the act.

The Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment.

CA-00071924-007 -Unfair Dismissal

The Complainant has opted to pursue redundancy over an Unfair Dismissal complainant due to the availability of the Redundancy Payments Scheme. He did not withdraw this complaint but accepted that I could not find in his favour on both CA-00071924-001 and this.

CA-00071924-002, CA-00071924-003, CA-00071924-004, CA-00071924-005, CA-00071924-008 – Time

I have jurisdiction of each of the above complaints by way of Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, sub section 6 of which states Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

Subsection (8) provides that an adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause

The above payment of wages act complaints involve outstanding payments to the Complainant which accrued over the 6 months which led up to his termination. However, it was agreed that these payments would be delayed and the Respondent would make payment at a later date. As such I am satisfied that the were properly payable up until the payroll after the Complainant’s termination which was end of July 2024.

The other complaints for notice and outstanding annual leave have the same date of contravention. The only exception is CA-00071924-005 which involved payment for public holidays. Only one such holiday is within the 12 months of the Complainant’s submission of complaint, the June 2024 bank holiday.

The Complainant’s evidence was that the owner/director had always promised him payment of the outstanding monies owning to him. They had continued to talk after his employment ended and always had quite a positive relationship. The owner had indicated on several occasions that he needed to resolve a number of issues related to the business finances and when he did the Complainant would be paid. His health then deteriorated quite sharply and the Complainant did not think it would be reasonable to submit a complaints and instead sought to wait to resolve matters when he had recovered. The Respondent’s owner also suffered a serious bereavement and there were other complicating factors related to other parties who had become involved in the business.

I am satisfied that the reasons cited by the Complainant are a reasonable basis for delay in submitting the complaint. It is not just that he was seeking to resolve matters without escalating to the WRC. As a result of the Respondent’s health and bereavement he reasoanbly decided there were compassionate reasons for not bringing complaints. In addition, throughout this time the Respondent’s owner was promising to pay him and it would be contrary to the interests of justice to allow the Respondent to benefit from not following through those assurances.

CA-00071924-004 Organisation of Working Time Act

Section 23 of the Act provides that where:(i) an employee ceases to be employed, and (ii) the whole or any portion of the annual leave in respect of the relevant period remains to be granted to the employee, the employee shall, as compensation for the loss of that annual leave, be paid by his or her employer an amount equal to the pay, calculated at the normal weekly rate or, as the case may be, at a rate proportionate to the normal weekly rate, that he or she would have received had he or she been granted that annual leave.

The Complainant’s unchallenged evidence was that he was owed €6,400 in accrued and untaken leave.

Section 27 of the Act (as amended) provides that an Adjudication Officer may require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment.

The Complainant was unable to take annual leave for a prolonged period and then was not paid that leave on cessation. In the circumstances I am satisfied that an award of €12,800 is just and equitable.

CA-00071924-005 Organisation of Working Time Act

Section 21 of the Act provides that: an employee shall, in respect of a public holiday, be entitled to whichever one of the following his or her employer determines, namely—(a) a paid day off on that day, (b) a paid day off within a month of that day, (c) an additional day of annual leave, (d) an additional day’s pay:

The Complainant’s unchallenged evidence was that he had not been paid public holidays for a number of months. As outlined above only the June Bank Holiday 2024 falls within my jurisdiction.

In the circumstances I am satisfied that an award of €200 is just and equitable.

CA-00071924-002 Payment of Wages Act

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act which deductions from wages unless certain specific criteria are met. Where a deduction from wages has occurred it will generally be for the Respondent to show that it was permitted. However, the Complainant must first establish that a deduction has happened, i.e. an amount was paid to them which was less than what was properly payable or nothing was paid to them when they were owed payment.

The Complainant’s unchallenged evidence is that he had agreed to reduce salary to facilitate the Respondent’s cash flow issues. His reduced salary then ceased being paid entirely from January 2024 and he was owed €14717.95 on cessation which was not paid to him.

In the circumstances it is reasonable to conclude that a this sum was properly payable and was not paid. There was a deduction and the Respondent has failed to establish that it was in compliance with the act.

Under the same claim the Complainant has also established that a notice payment was properly payable to him totalling €6,400.00. It also was not paid and is also an unlawful deduction.

In the circumstances I am satisfied that the Respondent should pay the Complainant €21,117.95.

CA-00071924-003 Payment of Wages Act and CA-00071924-008 Minimum Notice Act

These are duplicate claims overlapping with the above and concerning notice only. This issue is resolved under complaint no.2 and as such these complaints are not well founded.

CA-00071924-001 – Redundancy Payments Act

I find that the complaint is well founded and that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum calculated on the basis of the following:

Date employment commenced: 1st of February 2019.

Date employment ceased: 3rd of July 2024.

Wages: In excess of €600 per week.

CA-00071924-007 -Unfair Dismissal

I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00071924-004 Organisation of Working Time Act

I find that the complaint is well founded and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €12,800 in compensation.

CA-00071924-005 Organisation of Working Time Act

I find that the complaint is well founded and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €200 in compensation.

CA-00071924-002 Payment of Wages Act

I find that the complaint is well founded and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €21,117.95.

CA-00071924-003 Payment of Wages Act

I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00071924-008 Minimum Notice Act

I find that the complaint is not well founded.