ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00063268
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Yeranis Poll Perez | M&N Property Services |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00076587-001 | 20/10/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/05/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
On 20 October 2025 the Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. Following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, a hearing was convened on 12 May 2026 to afford the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence they deemed relevant to the complaints.
The Complainant attended the hearing and was unrepresented. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. The hearing was assisted by an Interpreter.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski V Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24, the parties were informed in advance of the hearing that the hearing would normally be in public, testimony under oath or affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant was advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (miscellaneous provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the WRC are now held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised. He was also advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation and the required affirmation/oath was administered to the Complainant and the legal perils of committing perjury were explained.
Background:
In his complaint form, the Complainant outlined that the Respondent had not paid/paid him less than the amount due to him and that all such payments were due to him no later than 5 September 2025,
The Respondent operates a facilities management business. There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent, neither did the Respondent provide a written submission outlining it’s position.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence that he commenced working with the Respondent on 11 August 2025 and that he was in receipt of €680 per week gross pay. He confirmed that he did not get paid for work done on the week of 11 August 2025 and the week of 18 August 2025.
He also gave evidence that he made a number of attempts to contact the Respondent by WhatsApp, by phone and other messages but did not receive any replies. He stated that he ceased working for the Respondent on 5 September 2025 as the Respondent no longer assigned him any shifts. He stated that at the time of the termination of his employment, in addition to the 2 weeks’ pay not received he should also have received pay for annual leave outstanding and a back week. The Complainant confirmed that he was paid one week in arrears and that he had 5 days annual leave outstanding at the time of his termination of employment.
The Complainant provided copies of payslips and messages to the company to ground his complaint. He confirmed that he never received a contract of employment.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent, neither did the Respondent provide a written submission outlining it’s position.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
On the day of the hearing, I awaited the attendance of the Respondent for in excess of 20 minutes beyond the scheduled start time but there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing. I allowed 7 days from the day of hearing for the Respondent to make contact with the WRC to explain the absence, before finalising this decision. No contact was made. The notice of the hearing was issued by the WRC to the address listed for the Respondent on the Companies Registration Office and I am, therefore satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the arrangements for the hearing.
As the Respondent was not present at the hearing and in the context that I am satisfied that the said Respondent was informed in writing of the arrangements for the hearing and in the absence of any explanation for the non-attendance I must make my findings on the basis of the uncontested evidence of the Complainant.
I noted the payslips submitted by the Complainant and am satisfied that he was an employee of the Respondent and that he had accurately described his pay rate and hours of work. I was also satisfied that the Complainant had made efforts to engage with the Respondent but did not receive any response in return.
I accept the Complainant’s evidence that he was owed a back week, 2 week’s pay for work done but not paid and 5 days of annual leave outstanding at the time of termination of employment. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I must conclude that the within complaint is 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.
For the reasons outlined above I found that this complaint is well founded, and I decide accordingly. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the amount of €2720 in outstanding wages.
|
Dated: 5th June 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
Payment of wages |