ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00063032
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Louise Delacey | Heather Foods & Catering Limited |
Representatives | Self-represented | No Attendance |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00076703-001 | 22/10/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00076711-001 | 23/10/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00077908-001 | 24/11/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00077908-002 | 24/11/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00077908-003 | 24/11/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/07/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaints. The hearing was held in the Hearing Rooms of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Carlow. The complainant, Ms. Delacey attended the hearing and gave evidence under oath. The respondent did not attend the hearing.
As the company is registered on the company registration website as ‘normal’ and the notice of hearing was sent to the correct registered address, I decided to proceed with the hearing.
Background:
The complainant submitted complaints to the WRC that she was not paid redundancy, wages, accrued annual leave, and minimum notice. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Summary of Complainant’s Evidence Ms. Delacey gave testimony that she commenced employment on 14th March 2014 and was made redundant on 13th October 2025. She said the staff were brought into a meeting that Monday and were informed that they had no jobs anymore. She put into evidence a letter from the company owner dated 20th October 2025 which stated she was being made redundant and there were no funds to pay outstanding wages. She said she worked 40 hours per week and was paid €537.00 gross. When the business closed she was owed two weeks gross wages which totalled €1,074.00 She said she had previously been on maternity leave and had banked up holiday leave of 56 hours at €13.50 per hour which totalled €756.00. She said she received no notice when the business closed on 13th October 2025. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
A representative of the respondent did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was sent to the correct business address as per the company registration website. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00076703-001- Payment of Wages Complaint The Law Section 5 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides- An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless- (a) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute, (b) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee’s contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or (c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given prior consent in writing to it. Finding The first issue to be decided is whether wages were properly payable. Having enquired into the complaint and based on the uncontested testimony, I find that there has been a breach of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act in that she was not paid wages due when the business closed. The complainant gave evidence that she was owed two weeks wages at the time of closure. This is corroborated by the correspondence sent by the owner which states there was no means of paying the final two weeks wages due. I decide the complaint is well founded and that gross wages of €1,074.00 is payable by the respondent to the complainant. The complainant said she was not paid for annual leave accrued when the business closed. I am satisfied with the uncontested testimony that the complainant was owed gross wages of €756.00 as compensation for this annual leave. I decide the complaint is well founded and that gross wages of €756.00 is payable by the respondent to the complainant. CA-00077908-001- Redundancy Complaint I am satisfied with the testimony of the complainant that she was made redundant on 13th October 2025. The correspondence from the company owner of 20th October 2025 corroborates that the company was insolvent and that she was being made redundant. I allow the complainant’s appeal and find that she is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014 as below- -Date of commencement of employment 14th March 2014 -Date of termination 13th October 2025 -Gross weekly wage €537 The award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. CA-00077908-002- Minimum Notice Complaint The Law Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 provides for an employer to give notice based on the service of the employee. The section provides for notice of six-weeks for an employee with over ten-years’ service. Finding The complainant’s uncontested testimony is corroborated by the correspondence received by the owner of the company confirming that the business was closing with immediate effect. As the complainant had over ten-years’ service with the respondent, she is entitled under the Act to six-weeks’ notice. I decide that the Act was contravened and the respondent should pay gross wages of €3,222.00 to the complainant. |
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 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
CA-00076703-001- Payment of Wages Complaint Wages I decide the complaint is well founded and that gross wages of €1,074.00 is payable by the respondent to the complainant. Annual Leave Accrued I decide the complaint is well founded and that gross wages of €756.00 is payable by the respondent to the complainant for annual leave accrued. CA-00076711-001- Payment of Wages Complaint This is a duplicate complaint of CA-00076703-001 as above. I find this complaint not well founded. CA-00077908-001- Redundancy Complaint I allow the complainant’s appeal and find that she is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014 as below- -Date of commencement of employment 14th March 2014 -Date of termination 13th October 2025 -Gross weekly wage €537 The award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. CA-00077908-002- Minimum Notice Complaint I decide that the Act was contravened and the respondent should pay gross wages of €3,222.00 to the complainant. CA-00077908-003- Payment of Wages Complaint This is a duplicate complaint of CA-00076703-001 as above. I find this complaint not well founded. |
Dated: 15-07-2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Redundancy, Payment of Wages, Minimum Notice |