ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062552
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | David Smith | Sodexo Ireland Ltd |
Representatives | Self - Represented | James Condon NFP, HR Solutions |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00075712-001 | 24/09/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Valerie Murtagh
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. The hearing was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Parties were sworn in at the commencement of the hearing.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant states that he was employed as a chef manager with the Respondent since 2015. He is claiming that the Respondent has not paid his correct wages and outstanding holiday pay during his certified sick leave and upon the cessation of his employment. The Complainant states that when he was away on holidays, he realised that he was left short his holiday pay which was a huge inconvenience to him. He states that the Respondent has been standoffish and argumentative. The Complainant states that his employment from the company was terminated on 22 August 2025 on health grounds. The Complainant states that he has been loyal to the company for 10 years and has completed holiday and wages forms monthly so he has the skill set to calculate his own entitlements. The Complainant states that he has been left short wages many times throughout the years and let it slide due to a good working relationship but now to treat him in this manner given his service and loyalty to the organisation, he feels is totally unfair and unreasonable.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s position is that the complaint arises from a misunderstanding of the payroll history during the Complainant’s absence. The Respondent asserts that payroll errors resulted in overpayments being made to the Complainant at different points during 2025, that those overpayments were subsequently identified and that the payroll position was then reconciled. The Respondent states that the documentary position communicated to the Complainant by letter dated 11 December 2025 was that the payroll review had been completed, that a remaining company sick pay amount of €668.16 had been processed and paid, that a further social welfare amount of €565.74 had been deducted through payroll in November, that 10.33 days of annual leave had been paid and that no outstanding balance remained due to the Complainant. The Respondent notes that in the same correspondence, the Complainant was offered the opportunity to discuss the calculations further, including by way of a call with the senior payroll controller so that the calculations could be explained in full. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully examined the within claim by the Complainant who is alleging that he has not been paid his correct wages and outstanding holiday pay during his certified sick leave and upon the cessation of his employment. I note that payroll errors occurred in January and April 2025 due to issues arising in connection with payroll cut-off dates and the submission of absence information. I accept the evidence of the Respondent wherein it stated that these payroll errors resulted in overpayments being made to the Complainant. I note that the Respondent undertook a detail payroll review and identified any sick pay due to the Complainant, made the relevant social welfare adjustments and these matters were reconciled. I note that no outstanding balance remained due. I am cognisant that the Complainant was offered the opportunity to discuss the calculations further, including by way of a call with the senior payroll controller so that the calculations could be explained in full. On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the Complainant has not established that the Respondent is in breach of the legislation and therefore I find that his 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.
I find that the within complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 27th of May 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Valerie Murtagh
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act, Organisation of Working Time Act |
