ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00064056
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Leah Ricken | Lifestyle Fitness |
Representatives | Self-represented | No appearance |
Complaint:
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-00078089-001 | 29/11/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/06/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
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. This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359 of 2020, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant contends that she was denied her contractual right to the minimum notice or payment in lieu of same.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was employed as a Fitness Instructor from 2nd October 2023 to 22nd November 2025. She was paid €1,106 per fortnight. On 22nd November 2025 she submitted her resignation and provided the required notice as contained in her contract of employment. She stated that the contract of employment specifically stated that she was required to give a minimum of 4 weeks’ notice. She complied with this citing the expiry date of the notice was 23rd December 2025. The Respondent responded to her letter placing her on ‘garden leave’ and ending her employment on 7th December 2025.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Despite attempts to contact the Respondent by email and phone, the Respondent did not attend the hearing convened to hear both parties in the case.
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 7 (2) of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act states:
(2) In any case where an employee accepts payment in lieu of notice, the date of the termination of that person’s employment shall, for the purposes of the Act of 1967, be deemed to be the date on which notice, if given would have expired.
In this case, the Complainant gave the Respondent 4 weeks’ notice as provided for in her contract of employment. The Respondent paid 2 weeks in lieu. I find that the contractual position applies, and I find the 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.
For the reasons and findings above, I have decided that the complaint is well founded. I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €1,106.
Dated: 17 June 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Minimum notice, contractual entitlement. |
