ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062928
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mikael Karlsson | Remitly Europe Ltd |
Representatives |
| Ciara Ni Longaigh of Maples & Calder |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00076830-001 | 27/10/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/02/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
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.
Background:
The Complainant has been an employee of the Respondent since December 2023 working in IT Support.
In July 2025 the Respondent notified its employees that it was making certain changes to its employee stock purchase plan (“ESPP”). These changes came in in August 2025. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that the ESPP is a contractual entitlement and that Respondent should have to agree changes with him or address changes through improvements in other forms of renumeration. He does not have a dispute with regard to the information given to him or the attempts of the Respondent to explain their position. His case is that they are incorrect and in violation of his contractual rights not that they failed to inform him of the changes to the plan. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent entirely disputes the Complainant’s position. The ESPP is not a contractual entitlement and is an additional employee benefit regulated by the wider group of companies. Changes to the ESPP followed a robust and comprehensive process. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This dispute does not relate to an alleged failure of an employer to provide key particulars of the employment relationship or notify the Complainant of changes to these particulars. The Complainant’s case is that the changes to the ESPP should have been agreed with him. The substance of the complaint clearly falls outside the scope an Adjudication Officer considering a breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. |
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.
I find the complaint not well founded. |
Dated: 2nd March 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|