ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00065453
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jake Hastewell | J & E Peacon Limited |
Representatives | Self Represented | Not present |
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-00079815-001 | 21/01/2026 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00079815-003 | 21/01/2026 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following 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 by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The Hearing too place completely in public and the required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Cutterist from October 17th 2019 to January 25th 2025. The Complainant submitted to the WRC, on January 21st 2026, a complaint relating to a non agreed deduction of 600 Euros from his final wages due (and which was related to a non work issue) and a complaint that he had not been notified of changes to his contract of employment when employed. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides: “(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.” And section 41 (8) provides: “(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.” The complaint relating to not receiving written notice of changes to the Complainants contract was submitted under an Act which did not cover this type of complaint. The two complaints were submitted nearly 12 months after the alleged contravention dates and therefore out of time as per Section 41 (6). As no reasonable cause existed for the delay I find that the two complaints are statute barred. |
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.
I find the two complaints to be statue barred and therefore not well founded.( CA-00079815-001 and CA-00079815-003.) |
Dated: 23-03-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Key Words:
Deduction |