ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062880

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Robert Cremin	For the Sake of Ale Limited

Representatives

No Appearance

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997	CA-00076735-001	23/10/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/05/2026 & 03/06/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan

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 and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

This matter was heard in person on 8 May 2026 and by way of a remote hearing on 3 June 2026 pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the WRC”) as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

At the time the hearing was to commence, it was apparent that there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent. I verified that the Respondent was on notice of the date, time and login arrangements for the hearing and waited a reasonable period to accommodate a late arrival before opening the hearing in its absence.

The complaint form identified the Respondent by its trading name rather than its legal name. On the first hearing date the Complainant gave evidence that the business operated under the name “Teach Tábhairne Ag Teacht”, which was displayed on the exterior of the premises. I note that the payslips furnished to the Complainant did not identify the employer and therefore did not assist in identifying the correct legal entity.

During the hearing, in the course of making inquiries regarding the identity of the employer, I reviewed the Companies Registration Office records together with the Complainant. Having considered those records, together with the evidence before me as a whole, I am satisfied that the legal entity carrying on the business concerned was For the Sake of Ale Limited. I am further satisfied that the complaint was intended to be brought against that legal entity and that the use of the trading name amounted to a misdescription rather than the identification of a different respondent.

I am satisfied that the notification was sent to For the Sake of Ale Limited at its registered address and that it was afforded an opportunity to participate in these proceedings. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that no prejudice arises from correcting the Respondent’s name. The amendment does not alter the substance of the complaint or seek to substitute a new respondent. Rather, it corrects the description of the Respondent so as to identify the legal entity against which the complaint was intended to be brought. Accordingly, I amend the name of the Respondent to For the Sake of Ale Limited and proceed on that basis.

The parties are named in the heading of the Decision. For ease of reference, for the remainder of the document I will refer to Robert Cremin as “the Complainant” and For the Sake of Ale Limited as “the Respondent”.

At the adjudication hearing I advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the WRC are now held in public and that the Decision would not be anonymised unless there were special circumstances for doing otherwise. There was no application to have the matter heard in private or to have the Decision anonymised.

The Complainant gave his evidence under affirmation.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute.

The parties’ respective positions are summarised below, followed by my findings, conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation in advance of the hearing and have considered all of the evidence before me.

Background:

The complaint was referred to the WRC on 23 October 2025. The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 9 July 2024 and his employment ended on 30 June 2025. The complaint concerns an allegation that the Complainant was not paid in respect of accrued but untaken annual leave upon the cessation of his employment.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant submitted that he was employed by the Respondent from 9 July 2024 until 30 June 2025.

He stated that, on 16 June 2025, he received a text message from the Respondent advising that the business was closing temporarily due to a lack of stock. He stated that, following receipt of that communication, he sought alternative employment and his employment with the Respondent ended on 30 June 2025.

The Complainant submitted that, at the date his employment ended, he had accrued but untaken annual leave and that he did not receive payment in lieu of that leave upon the termination of his employment.

The Complainant produced documentation in support of his claim, including payslips, a copy of the text message received from the Respondent and a calculation of his outstanding annual leave entitlement. He submitted that he had an outstanding annual leave balance of 48.52 hours at the date his employment ended and that the amount due in respect of that entitlement was €771.98.

The Complainant submitted that, notwithstanding the cessation of his employment, he did not receive payment in respect of his accrued but untaken annual leave and that the amount remains outstanding.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing of this complaint. Having reviewed the file I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the claim against it and the hearing date, time and login arrangements. I waited a reasonable time before proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Respondent.

Findings and Conclusions:

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation furnished by the Complainant, the oral evidence adduced at the hearing and the submissions made.

The Relevant Law

Compensation on Cesser of Employment

Section 23 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1997 Act”) provides for compensation on cesser of employment:

23(1) (a) Where—

(i) an employee ceases to be employed, and

(ii) the whole or any portion of the annual leave in respect of the relevant period remains to be granted to the employee,

the employee shall, as compensation for the loss of that annual leave, be paid by his or her employer an amount equal to the pay, calculated at the normal weekly rate or, as the case may be, at a rate proportionate to the normal weekly rate, that he or she would have received had he or she been granted that annual leave.

The instant case concerns an alleged failure by the Respondent to pay the Complainant in respect of accrued but untaken annual leave upon the cessation of his employment.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing and no written submissions or documentary evidence were furnished on its behalf. I am satisfied that the Respondent was properly notified of the proceedings and afforded an opportunity to participate.

The Complainant attended the hearing and presented as a credible witness. He gave evidence that he commenced employment with the Respondent on 9 July 2024 and that his employment ended on 30 June 2025. He stated that on 16 June 2025, he received a text message from the Respondent advising that the business was closing temporarily due to a lack of stock. Following receipt of that communication, he secured alternative employment and his employment with the Respondent came to an end.

The Complainant gave further evidence that, at the date his employment ended, he had accrued but untaken annual leave and that no payment in lieu of that leave was made. He produced documentation in support of his claim, including payslips, the text message received from the Respondent and his calculation of outstanding annual leave entitlement.

I accept the Complainant’s evidence that his employment ended on 30 June 2025 and that he had an accrued but untaken annual leave balance at that date. I further accept the Complainant’s evidence that no payment was made in respect of that entitlement.

The Complainant calculated his outstanding annual leave entitlement at 48.52 hours, equivalent to €771.98. No evidence was adduced by the Respondent to dispute either the existence of the entitlement or the amount claimed. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence before me, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Complainant was entitled to payment in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave in the amount claimed.

Accordingly, I find that the Respondent failed to comply with its obligations under section 23 of the 1997 Act and that the complaint is well founded.

Section 27(3)(c) of the 1997 Act empowers an Adjudication Officer to award such compensation as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. Having considered the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that compensation equivalent to the value of the Complainant's unpaid annual leave entitlement is appropriate. I therefore determine that compensation in the amount of €771.98 is just and equitable in all the circumstances and should be awarded.

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.

For the reasons set out above, I decide that the complaint is well founded. Pursuant to section 27(3)(c) of the 1997 Act, I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of €771.98. This award represents compensation for a contravention of the 1997 Act and is therefore not subject to statutory deductions.

Dated: 08th of June 2026.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan

Key Words: