ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060968
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Burak Pekgüzelsu | Alsaya Holdings Limited T/A The Smokin Goat |
Representatives | Self-represented | Non-attendance |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00073399-001 | 13/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/02/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the 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:
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. A short grace period was allowed for them to attend but no communication was received from the respondent, and the hearing proceeded. As the evidence of the complainant was not in contention, no oath or affirmation was administered. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that he was badly treated by the respondent during the recruitment process. He stated that he provided recipes for the use of the respondent, however, he confirmed that he was never employed by the respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant confirmed that he did not work for the respondent. Section 2 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 deals with the exclusions relating to the Act. Section 2(1) states as follows: 2.—(1) This Act, other than section 3(1A), shall not apply to employment in which the employee has been in the continuous service of the employer for less than 4 consecutive weeks. Section 3(1A) is not applicable to this complaint. Arising from the complainant’s confirmation that he never worked for the respondent, I find that he is excluded from the provisions of this Act. |
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.
Having regard to all the written and oral submission made in relation to this complaint my decision is that the complainant is excluded from the provisions of the Act as he did not work for the respondent. |
Dated: 10-02-2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Terms of Employment Information – no continuous service with respondent – excluded from the provision of the Act |