ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00063820

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Angelos Elias	Heather Food & 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-00077411-001	11/11/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00077826-001	21/11/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00077826-002	21/11/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00077826-003	21/11/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/05/2026

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, Carlow. The complainant, Mr. Alias attended the hearing and gave evidence under oath. The respondent did not attend the hearing. It was clarified at the commencement of the hearing that CA-00077411-001 is a duplicate of CA-00077826-003.

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, Mr. Alias, submitted a complainant that he did not receive a redundancy payment. He also made complaints that he did not receive notice of termination or wages due.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Summary of Complainant’s Evidence

Mr. Alias gave evidence that he commenced employment with the respondent on 7th June 2015 and worked up to 13th October 2025 when he was informed that he was being made redundant by the company owner. He said he arrived for work as normal on 13th October 2025 and he was told that the business would not be opening that day. He put into evidence a letter he received on 20th October 2025 which confirmed that the business was forced to close due to insolvency and there was no means of paying wages or redundancy. He put into evidence his pay slip which confirmed he was paid gross wages of €540 per week.

He said he received no notice of redundancy and was owed two weeks wages when the business closed.

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-00077826-002- Redundancy Complaint

I am satisfied with the testimony of the complainant that he was made redundant on 12th October 2025. The correspondence from the company owner of 20th October 2025 corroborates that the company was insolvent and that he was being made redundant. I allow the complainant’s appeal and find that he is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014 as below-

-Date of commencement of employment 7th June 2015

-Date of termination 12th October 2025

-Gross weekly wage €540

The award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.

CA-00077826-001- 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, he is entitled under the Act to six-weeks’ notice.

I decide that the Act was contravened and the respondent should pay gross wages of €3,240 to the complainant.

CA-00077826-003- 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 the complainant was not paid wages due when the business closed. The complainant gave evidence that he 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 €1,080 is payable by the respondent 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-00077411-001- Payment of Wages Complaint

This is a duplicate complaint which is addressed in decision CA-00077826-003 below. I find this complaint is not well founded.