ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060137
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mustafa Akdas | Youbeel Hagi Barwari t/a Dino's Barbar |
Representatives | Self-represented | Nonattendance |
Complaint(s):
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-00073229-001 | 08/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/01/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The respondent did not attend the hearing nor provide reason for the nonattendance. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that he worked legally for the most part during working week under a contract of employment. However, he stated that he worked in an undeclared fashion for considerable additional hours per week in order to avoid paying tax. He stated that he now wished to seek outstanding holiday pay in relation to those hours. In evidence he stated that he did not have a contract of employment at all and that any assertion in his written submissions arose as a result of using Chat GPT to compile his compliant form. The complainant stated that he provided proof of his additional hours with texts from his phone and that he had regularised his hours with the Revenue Commissioners. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant submitted that he worked additional undeclared hours with the respondent. He stated that he had regularised these hours with the Revenue Commissioners and was now seeking outstanding holiday pay in relation to those regularised hours. The complainant was asked in writing following the hearing to provide written proof of having regularised his hours of employment with the Revenue Commissioner to support his contentions. He was informed that his complaint would be considered in light of this written confirmation of the regularisation of his hours and was provided with a two-week timeframe to submit that information. The complainant failed to provide any written confirmation within the timeframe which would support his contention of having worked additional hours of employment. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the complaint is well founded and I find that the complainant has not established that the Act was contravened. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Having regard to all the written and oral evidence that was presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act was not contravened. |
Dated: 24th of February 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Payment of Wages – Undeclared hours – contravention not established |