ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028521

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Iulia Todosi	Hilton Hotel

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	{text}	{text}

Representatives

Marius Marosan(at the hearing)

Peter Gilfedder, IBEC

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-00035823-001	23/04/2020
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00035823-002	23/04/2020
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005	CA-00035823-004	23/04/2020
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00035823-006	23/04/2020
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00035823-007	23/04/2020

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/03/2025 and06/08/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 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.

This case was held in conjunction with ADJ 28522 as the facts are virtually identical.

Preliminary Matter

The Respondent, in their submissions, pointed out that the Complainant had failed to identify her correct employer on the WRC complaint form. The Complainant listed her employer as Hilton Hotel, whereas the correct employer was Charlemont Leisure Investments Limited T/A Hilton Dublin.

Having reviewed the Complainant’s payslips and contract of employment, I am satisfied that she was employed by Charlemont Leisure Investments Limited T/A Hilton Dublin and that she should, therefore, have been aware of this fact.

A similar issue was recently considered by the Labour Court in Lawlor’s Hotel and Deborah McMahon (HSD2514). In that case, the Court held that the Complainant:

“…was on notice at all times that her employer was Burke Hotels Limited as stated in her contract of employment and on her payslips. This oversight on the Complainant’s part is not something that the Court has any statutory basis to rectify.”

I find that the circumstances here mirror those in Lawlor’s Hotel and Deborah McMahon. Specifically, the Complainant’s payslips name Charlemont Leisure Investments Limited as her employer, and her contract of employment is with Charlemont Leisure Investments Limited T/A Hilton Dublin. In light of this, I am satisfied that the Complainant’s employer at all material times was Charlemont Leisure Investments Limited and not the named Respondent.

Following the reasoning of the Labour Court, I am further satisfied that the Complainant knew, or ought to have known, the correct name of her employer.

It is also relevant that the Complainant was legally represented when these complaints were filed.

In addition, the WRC’s published guidance notes on the adjudication and investigation of employment and equality complaints, which are freely available to complainants, state:

“The Complaint Form should be carefully filled out, correctly completing all relevant sections including the correct name and address of the employer/respondent. It is vital to ensure the correct legal name of the employer/respondent is entered on the Complaint Form.”

Finally, I note that neither the Complainant nor her representative sought to amend the name of the Respondent, despite the Respondent having clearly set out in their submissions that the employer’s name had been recorded incorrectly.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that I cannot substitute or amend the name of the impleaded Respondent in these complaints. Accordingly, I have no option but to decline jurisdiction in respect of all of the complaints.

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.

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.

CA-00035823-001: