ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00063428
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Hennadii Dmitriiev | Ai Tokenomics Ltd |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaints:
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-00077336-001 | 08/11/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00077336-002 | 08/11/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00077336-003 | 08/11/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following 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. Parties were advised in advance of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted. Where submissions from parties were received, they were exchanged. The complainant did not attend. In attendance for the respondent was Michael English Director and Lorna Mason CFO.
Background:
The complainant submitted that there were monies owing and holidays owing and his core terms had misleading or false information. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00077336-001
The complainant did not attend the hearing. On his complaint form the complainant submits that his employer has made an unlawful deduction from wages and/or tips or gratuities. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00077336-001
The respondent disputed the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00077336-001
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the complainant on 08/11/2025 alleging contravention of the Acts. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held 13/04/2026 and there was no appearance by the complainant, and the respondent was in attendance. I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and did not attend.
In all the circumstances, I, therefore, find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00077336-002
The complainant did not attend the hearing. On his complaint form the complainant submits that he did not receive paid holiday/annual leave entitlement. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00077336-002
The respondent disputed the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00077336-002
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the complainant on 08/11/2025 alleging contravention of the Acts. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held 13/04/2026 and there was no appearance by the complainant, and the respondent was in attendance. I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and did not attend.
In all the circumstances, I, therefore, find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00077336-003
The complainant did not attend the hearing. On his complaint form the complainant submits that he received a statement of core terms which deliberately contain false or misleading information. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00077336-003
The respondent disputed the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00077336-003
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the complainant on 08/11/2025 alleging contravention of the Acts. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held 13/04/2026 and there was no appearance by the complainant, and the respondent was in attendance. I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and did not attend.
In all the circumstances, I, therefore, find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint. |
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.
CA-00077336-001 I find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint. CA-00077336-002 I find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint. CA-00077336-003 I find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint. |
Dated: 05/05/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Annual leave, false information, monies owed, complainant did not attend |