ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056587
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Krzyszrof Bonarek | Sean Doyle Windows Ltd. |
Representatives | Darach McNamara BL E.M O'Hanrahan Solicitors | Killian McGovern BL Crushell & Co Solicitors |
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-00068815-001 | 24/01/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
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 is employed as a Door Service Technician from 1st February 2023. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Employer has purported to lay of the employee but has done so unlawfully and in breach of contract because there was no clause in the employee's contract(no written contract furnished) entitling the Employer to lay off the employee, and there were no circumstances where the Employer could lay of the employee, and the Employer acted unilaterally without the consent of the Employee. In circumstances where the Employee has neither been dismissed nor laid off, he asserts his entitlement to his contractual earnings of €800 gross per week since 02/12/24. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent is dedicated to delivering quality reliability and skilled craftsmanship to homes. The Complainant was employed as a Door service Technician until 22nd November 2024. The Complainant had booked the company van in for repair near his home. Customers were complaining as he failed to show up for his calls. He was uncontactable by the company. The garage said the van was being serviced and would take one day to fix. The Complainant did not inform the company. On 22nd November 2024, the Complainant was informed that as a few contracts had been lost, there would be no work going forward and he was being let go. The Respondent says the complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is frivolous and vexatious, and misconceived as the Complainant was dismissed. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I heard and considered the submissions and evidence of the parties at the hearing. At the hearing the Complainant clarified his claim for wages is from 22nd November 2024 until 1st March 2025 which is dealt with in a separately. This complaint is a duplication. The complaint is not 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.
The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 20-05-2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Key Words:
|