Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Caio Gadioli

Morgan Hospitality Limited

Representatives

 Self

N/A

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00072727-001

24/06/2025

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

CA-00072727-002

24/06/2025

The Complainant submitted these complaints on 24th June 2025 alleging that the Respondent had not given the required period of notice and had also failed to pay annual leave entitlements.

A hearing was scheduled for 10.00am on Tuesday 28th October 2025, however at the time the hearing was due to commence, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

The Complainant gave evidence on his own behalf, by way of civil affirmation, in relation to his complaints.

The Complainant said that he worked for the Respondent from 5th February 2024 until 7th February 2025. His rate of pay was €2,200 gross per month and his contract of employment was for 20 hours per week.

The Complainant described his role as personal assistant.

He said that the company stopped operating but he received no communication, no explanation, and no wages for holidays, bank holidays, notice period, or termination. He says that he was effectively dismissed without any formal process.

The Complainant acknowledged that he took 5 days annual leave over the course of his one year employment, but states that he is entitled to payment for the additional 15 days that he had not taken.

He also said that he had not been paid for bank holidays on 18th March; 1st April; 6th May; 3rd June and 5th August 2024.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. The hearing notification letter issued on 8th September 2025 to the Respondent’s registered address and was not returned to the Commission. No communication has been received from the Respondent in this case.

At the outset of the hearing, when it was apparent that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent, I waited some time to accommodate any late arrival. I contacted the case officer to ascertain if any communication had been received from the Respondent on the morning of the hearing and was told that no contact had been made.

I verified that the hearing notification letter had been sent to the company’s registered address and noted that it had not been returned as undelivered.

In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the hearing but chose not to attend.

CA-00072727-001

Section 4 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 sets out the requirement for a notice period. It says:

4.(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be—

(a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week,…

Section 12 of the same Act states that:

“(1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4(2) or 5 may, where the adjudication officer finds that that section was contravened by the employer in relation to the employee who presented the complaint, include a direction that the employer concerned pay to the employee compensation for any loss sustained by the employee by reason of the contravention.

(2) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a dispute as to the entitlements of an employer under section 6 may include such directions as the adjudication officer considers appropriate.”

The Complainant also provided a copy of his contract which states:

You must provide the employer with the appropriate period of notice of termination for your employment as outlined in the Employee Handbook. As per the Employee Handbook, the minimum period of notice to be given depends on your length of service with the company in respect of the below periods of notice. You are also entitled to receive the below periods of notice from Morgan Hospitality Limited in relation to termination of your employment.

Morgan Hospitality Limited reserves the right to give you pay in lieu of any period of notice which you are required to give to or are entitled to receive from Morgan Hospitality Limited.

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I am satisfied that the contract of employment was terminated on 7th February 2025. As the employment commenced on 5th February 2024, the period of continuous employment was more than 1 year and less than 2 years. Based on the above, the Complainant has a contractual entitlement to a 4 week period of notice. The Complainant’s evidence was that no period of notice was received in relation to the termination of employment.

I find that the Respondent has contravened section 4(2) of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973, and accordingly this complaint is well founded. The Complainant is therefore entitled to compensation for the loss he has sustained in the amount of €2,200.

CA-00072727-002

Section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 addresses an employee’s entitlement to annual leave. It states:

19.(1) Subject to the First Schedule (which contains transitional provisions in respect of the leave years 1996 to 1998), an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this Act referred to as “annual leave”) equal to—

(a) 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment),

(b) one-third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours, or

(c) 8 per cent. of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks):

Provided that if more than one of the preceding paragraphs is applicable in the case concerned and the period of annual leave of the employee, determined in accordance with each of those paragraphs, is not identical, the annual leave to which the employee shall be entitled shall be equal to whichever of those periods is the greater.

Section 27(3) of that same Act states that:

“A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of a relevant provision shall do one or more of the following, namely:

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision,

(c) 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 uncontested evidence of the Complainant is that he had an outstanding statutory entitlement to 15 days annual leave. He acknowledged that he had used 5 days annual leave already within the relevant period.

I accept the Complainant’s uncontested evidence. I find that the Respondent has contravened section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and this complaint is therefore well founded.

The Respondent is required to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €2,000, which I consider to be just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, including the fact that the Complainant did not receive his annual leave payment and was required to engage in proceedings to secure his statutory entitlement.

Public Holidays

At the hearing, the Complainant also stated that he did not receive payment for public holidays. However, this aspect of his complaint was not contained in his complaint form, either in his selection of complaints or in the narrative aspect of the form.

Under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, an employee can make a complaint if they believe their employer has broken any of the employment laws listed in Schedule 5 of the Act. These complaints are presented to the Director General of the WRC, usually using the WRC’s complaint form, and the Director General shall then pass the complaint to the WRC’s Adjudication Service. Section 41(1) says:

An employee (in this Act referred to as a “complainant”) or, where the employee so consents, a specified person may present a complaint to the Director General that the employee’s employer has contravened a provision specified in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 5 in relation to the employee and, where a complaint is so presented, the Director General shall, subject to section 39, refer the complaint for adjudication by an adjudication officer.

That is how the above complaints (CA-00072727-001 and CA-00072727-002) have come to me, as an Adjudication Officer, to examine and carry out all necessary inquiries.

The Complainant’s complaint regarding public holidays was not presented to the Director General and it has therefore not been referred to me in accordance with the above section. I am unable to make any finding in relation to this complaint as I do not consider that I have jurisdiction to address it.

For the reasons set out above, I find the complaints are well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €4,200 within 45 days of the date of this decision.

Annual leave – minimum notice – lack of jurisdiction