ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00059097

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Martin Joyce	Failte Energy Solutions Limited t/a Failte Solar.

Representatives

Self-represented

Did not attend

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute 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-00071875-001	26/05/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/09/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Máire Mulcahy

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.

I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021

The party present at the hearing agreed to proceed in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence may be required.

Oral evidence was presented by the complainant under oath.

The respondent made a written submission but did not attend the hearing.

Background:

The complainant has presented a complaint that the respondent failed to pay him his statutory notice as required by section 4(2)(a) of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

The complaint had been employed as a warehouse supervisor from the 18/10/2024 up until the termination of his employment on 26/05/2025.

He was paid €711 for a 39-hour week.

He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 26/5/2025.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Evidence of complaint given under oath

The complainant had been employed from the 18/10/2024 up until the termination of his employment on 26/05/2025 as a warehouse supervisor with the respondent company who manufactured materials for solar panels.

The complainant stated that his last salary was paid on 6/6/2025 and it contained payment of two weeks’ notice, plus holiday pay, but that upon the commencement of his employment, he worked a back week and that was missing in his final pay cheque.

His six-month probationary period was up on 18/5/2025.He stated that the respondent failed to communicate with him about ongoing work after that point and he was left in a very uncertain state about his future.

On 23/5/2025, the CEO of the company came to the warehouse in which the complainant works to inform the staff that the respondent would be shutting the warehouse down and terminating the complainant’s and other colleagues’ employment.

He requests that he be paid the weeks’ back money which he states he is due.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent did not attend.

The respondent submitted a statement, a copy of which was sent to the complaint denying that he failed to pay the complainant his notice.

Findings and Conclusions:

I am required to establish if the respondent contravened the provisions of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act,1973 by failing to pay the complaint his statutory notice.

The complainant lodged his complaint under the Act of 1973 on 26/5/2025, before his final payment issued to him on the 6/6/2025, so was not in a position to know on 26/5/2025 what was in his pay packet and what, if anything, he was owed. As such, his complaint was without a basis at that point.

Aside from that point, the complainant was employed for 6 months and was by virtue of section 4(2)(a) entitled to one week’s notice.

His own evidence was that he was paid two weeks’ notice which was a week in excess of his statutory entitlement. Payment of an employee’s statutory entitlement is what the WRC is confined to when presented with a complaint under the Act of 1973. He was not required to work his notice.

This is not a complaint submitted under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, about the alleged failure to pay his back week. Nor is it a complaint submitted under the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977 about the termination of his employment.

The complaint produced no pay slips to back up his complaint.

On the basis of the complainant’s own evidence which is that he was paid two weeks’ notice, I am satisfied that the respondent more than honoured his obligations under section 4(2)(a) of the Act of 1973.

I find this complaint to be misconceived.

I do not find this complaint to be well founded.

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.

I decide that this complaint is not well founded.

Dated: 07-07-2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Máire Mulcahy.

Key Words:

Statutory notice was paid.