Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Noel  Brennan

Temple Property Management Limited

Representatives

Self - Represented

Self - Represented

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-00075588-001

21/09/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00075591-001

21/09/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00075593-001

21/09/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00075595-001

21/09/2025

The Complainant states that he commenced full-time employment with the Respondent company on 21 January 2022. He states that although his contract was originally half-time, he was moved to full-time work from that date with an annual salary of €75,000.

The Complainant contends that his contract (clause 10) provides for a six-month notice period. The Complainant states that he was not given this notice; however, he received a redundancy letter together with repeated requests from two directors to sign a waiver of his notice entitlement. The Complainant maintains that no payment in lieu of notice was made and in those circumstances, he is due his six months’ contractual notice.

Non Payment of Holiday Pay

The Complainant states that under his contract, he is entitled to payment of accrued holiday pay. He states that in May 2025, HR and operations calculated his holiday entitlement. He states that this calculation differs from the subsequent letter he received from the company, which incorrectly stated that he was owed five days. The Complainant states that despite the inaccuracy, even this five day figure was not included in his pay. He states that his July payslip shows no holiday pay included, contrary to the company’s representation. The Complainant states that he also sent a correction to the board, based on the emails and agreed figures with HR and operations, but this information was ignored.

The Complainant states that as per the company’s own date of termination, his accrued holiday entitlement was 15.05 days which has not been paid.

Non Payment of August and September 2025 Salary

The Complainant states that he has not been paid since July 2025 and is due salary payment in respect of August and September 2025. The Complainant asserts that on that basis, the Respondent is in breach of the Payment of Wages Act.

Mr Johansson states that the Complainant was a co-founder of the Respondent company and held the title of co-founder in company documentation and external representations. The Respondent states that in addition, the Complainant served as Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the company. The Respondent states that the Complainant is also a shareholder of the 100% parent of the subject entity, Temple Residential Holdings SA (a Luxembourg incorporated entity).

The Respondent states that as COO, co-founder and existing Director of the entity until 5 June 2025, the Complainant had full responsibility for, and visibility into, the company’s operations, financial position, strategy and day to day management. The Respondent states that the Complainant was fully informed of all material aspects of the business at all relevant times.

Mr Johansson stated that the working relationship between the Complainant and himself was based on a high level of personal and professional trust, consistent with senior leadership roles in an early stage company.

Mr Johansson stated that the Respondent company was an early stage start-up; as is typical for companies at this stage, its continued operation depended on securing external funding and there was a shared understanding of the financial and operational risks involved. Mr Johansson maintained that these realities were known to and accepted by all founders and senior leadership including the Complainant.

Mr Johansson stated that during 2024, the company operated on the basis of a funding dependent roadmap. He states that it was understood and discussed at senior leadership level that the continuation of the business was contingent on securing external funding by April or early May 2025. Mr Johansson stated that it was further understood that if such funding was not secured by that timeframe, the company would need to move towards a wind-down of operations and ultimately liquidation. These matters were discussed openly in management meetings attended by the Complainant.

Mr Johansson states that following one such internal meeting attended by himself, the Complainant and a co-worker, a written follow-up was circulated documenting the agreed cost-reduction actions and contingency plans. As part of this process, a financial roadmap was prepared in Excel format by a co-worker. This document set out projected cash runway, cost-cutting measures and specific operational contingencies tied to the funding timeline. The roadmap reflected the discussions held in the meeting and was intended to document next steps.

Mr Johansson states that following the meeting on 5 November 2024, on 6 November 2024, an email titled “Cost Cuts Action Items” was sent by a co-worker from a company email address to:

Noel Brennan (company email) and Henrik Johansson (company email)

It was submitted that this email referenced the meeting held as outlined above and attached the Excel financial roadmap discussed during that meeting. Mr Johansson states that within the attached Excel file, line item number 15 stated:

“No funding until April/May – stop temp operations and sellers go into dormancy”.

Mr Johansson states that this action item was assigned jointly to himself and the Complainant, indicating shared awareness of and responsibility for this contingency plan. It was submitted that the email, its timing and the attached document demonstrate that the Complainant was explicitly informed, both verbally during the meeting and in writing immediately afterwards of the agreed roadmap and the consequences of not securing external funding by April or early May.

Mr Johansson maintains that throughout this period, the Complainant in his capacity as COO, co-founder and director actively participated in discussions relating to funding strategy, operational planning and potential outcomes if funding was not secured. He contends that the possibility of operational dormancy or liquidation was therefore a known, discussed and documented contingency rather than an unexpected or unilateral decision.

Mr Johansson states that at a later stage, he waived the Complainant’s non-compete obligation for a period of three months to allow the Complainant seek alternative employment without restriction.  Mr Johansson states that he also offered his support to the Complainant in seeking new opportunities and was willing to assist him in any reasonable way during that transition period.

Mr Johansson states that during an operational meeting held in June 2025, the Complainant agreed to waive any outstanding claims or entitlements in relation to the company. He states that this agreement was consistent with his prior decision to waive the Complainant’s non-compete obligation for a period of three months, in order to allow him to seek alternative employment without restriction. Mr Johansson states that in turn, a Named HR company were instructed to prepare a redundancy letter to this effect and this was circulated with a termination date of 25 July 2025.

Mr Johansson states that the company liaised with the Named HR management on the redundancy claim and unpaid annual leave. He states that all reconciliations were completed and full payments were made to the Complainant in respect of these matters during the year ending 2025.

Non Payment of 6 months’ Notice Period

Mr Johansson states that it was mutually agreed between the Complainant and himself that the 6 month notice period would be waived in lieu of waving the non-compete clause under section 22 of the employment contract, hence the reason for the inclusion of the waiver in the redundancy letter. He states that it is evident that that this request would not have been listed if this was not pre agreed.   

Mr Johansson states the Complainant was given instruction via WhatsApp messages, meetings and in an email by him and co-worker in December 2024 that his redundancy was forthcoming in the coming months due to the financial and strategic outlook of the company. Further, the Complainant was a director on the named entity and was fully aware that this entity was heading to liquidation.

Mr Johansson states the Complainant stepped down as director on 5 June 2025 to remove himself from such process to which the company agreed to accommodate. He further states that the current directors were present on teams calls in which this mutual agreement was made between the Complainant and Mr Johansson. In these circumstances, Mr Johansson submits that this claim should be dismissed.

Non Payment of Holiday Pay

Mr Johansson states that the redundancy letter shared with the Complainant noted a termination date effective 25 July 2025 and the Named HR company provided the calculation of the redundancy payment and unused holiday pay as of that date to which the company paid the necessary amounts. Mr Johansson states that following a reconciliation matter between the Complainant and the Named HR company, a final settlement of 9.5 days was paid in December 2025. In the circumstances, Mr Johansson states that all payments due to the Complainant have been made and accordingly this claim should be dismissed.

Non Payment of August and September 2025 Salary

Mr Johansson states that the Complainant received a redundancy letter evidencing his termination date being 25 July 2025 and therefore formal notice was fully presented. In addition, the Complainant attended many calls on the matter and was fully aware that redundancy was on the cards given the outlook of the company (liquidation). Mr Johansson states that in any event, the Complainant did not work for the company during August and September 2025. Mr Johansson submits that this claim should be rejected in its entirety.        

Non Payment of 6 months’ Notice Period – CA-00075588-001

Based on the evidence heard and written submissions, I note that notice was provided in November 2024 and as a Director of the Respondent and a shareholder of the Temple Group, the Complainant was aware of the financial issues of the company and the liquidation status of the entity. I am cognisant form the correspondence submitted that there is documentary evidence of the Complainant providing feedback and advice on the financial issues and the process leading to strike off.

I note that it was mutually agreed by the Complainant and Mr Johansson that the 6 month notice would be waived in lieu of waving the non-compete clause under section 22 of the employment contract. Mr Johansson points to the reason for the inclusion of the waiver in the redundancy letter and stated that it is evident that this request would not have been listed if it was not pre agreed.     

Mr Johansson submits that the Complainant was given instruction via WhatsApp messages, meetings and in an email by him and a co-worker in December 2024 that his redundancy was forthcoming in the coming months due to the financial and strategic outlook of the company.

On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the Complainant has not demonstrated a breach of the legislation and accordingly I find that the within complaint is not well founded.

Non Payment of Holiday Pay – CA-00075591-001

I am cognisant that the redundancy letter noted a termination date effective 25 July 2025 and the Named HR company provided the calculation of the redundancy payment and unused holiday pay. Mr Johansson confirmed that 6 days annual leave were paid in line with the Complainant’s salary in July 2025 and 9.5 days were paid in December 2025. In this regard, the Respondent provided documentary evidence to substantiate this matter.

While the Complainant has asserted that the Respondent is in breach of the legislation in respect of the non payment of holiday pay; I find that based on the documentary evidence provided by the Respondent that the Complainant has not established a contravention of the legislation in this regard. In those circumstances, I find that the within complaint is not well founded.

Non Payment of 6 months’ Notice Period  CA-00075593-001

The Complainant withdrew this claim at the commencement of the hearing on the basis that it is a duplicate of CA-00075588-001.

Non Payment of August and September 2025 Salary – CA-00075595-001

I am cognisant that the Complainant received a redundancy letter evidencing his termination date effective 25 July 2025. I note from the evidence at the hearing that the Complainant was fully informed of the company’s financial position and was involved in the discussions around same and was fully aware that redundancy was on the cards given the outlook of the company i.e. liquidation. It was further submitted that the Complainant did not work for the Respondent company during the prescribed months. On the basis of the evidence adduced, I find that the Complainant has not established a breach of the legislation and therefore his complaint fails. I find that the within complaint is not well founded.

Non Payment of 6 months’ Notice Period – CA-00075588-001

I find that this complaint is not well founded.

Non Payment of Holiday Pay – CA-00075591-001

I find that this complaint is not well founded.

Non Payment of August and September 2025 Salary – CA-00075595-001

I find that this complaint is not well founded.

Payment of Wages Act, Organisation of Working Time Act, notice period, holiday pay