ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060519
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ion Badia | Mav Bilding Construction |
Complaint:
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-00073324-001 | 10/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/02/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 an employee can present a complaint or complaints of any perceived contravention by his or her Employer of any of the Acts (Statutes) contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015. Any such complaint (usually presented in the format of a workplace relations complaint form) is made to the Director General of the WRC. The said Director General can then refer the complaint to the Adjudication services. It is in these circumstances that this matter has come before me - an Adjudication Officer -engaged by the Adjudication division of the WRC to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or complaints made. Where appropriate, I hear the parties’ oral evidence, and I can give consideration to any supporting evidence provided by witnesses or relevant documentation.
In this instance the Complainant has brought a complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 and where such a complaint is presented the Director General is empowered to refer that complaint forward for adjudication to the Adjudication Officer aforesaid.
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015, the Director General of the WRC may make a referral of said matter to the Adjudication Services.
Following said referral, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered during the course of the hearing.
The Complainant brings a complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act provides that an employer must pay wages that are properly payable to an employee. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.
It should be noted that a non-payment of wages that are properly payable on a given occasion shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on that occasion (per Section 5(6)).
Background:
This hearing was to be conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was to be conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing. Had evidence been given it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came intoeffecton the 29th of July 2021, and which said legislation accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 4th of December 2025 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means when filling out his complaint form. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 4th of December 2025 - and sent to the address given by the Complainant in the workplace relations complaint for as being the correct address for the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Neither party attended and I was not in a position to deal with the complaint made. |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00073324-001 – The complaint herein is not well-founded in circumstances where no evidence was proffered, and no finding could be made.
|
Dated: 17-02-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|