ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00061836

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Erin Griffiths	Order Up Ltd T/a Monks Kitchen

Representatives

Self Represented

Did not appear

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00074523-001	18/08/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/06/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Office: :Dónal Moore, BL

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 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.

I have considered all of the evidence and submissions before me. In setting out my findings, I have focused on the evidence and issues material to the determination of the complaint and have not addressed matters that are not relevant to my conclusions. Consistent with the principles in Faulkner v Minister for Industry and Commerce and Nano Nagle School v Daly, the findings below set out the evidence and reasoning fundamental to this decision.

Consistent with Zalewski, the parties were advised that evidence would be heard under oath or affirmation and of the penalties attaching to perjury. The hearing proceeded in public, and no application was made for it to be heard otherwise.

For the Complainant the hearing was attended by the Complainant Ms Griffiths, and they gave evidence under Oath. No other witnesses were produced.

For the Respondent the hearing was unattended.

In the interests of fairness, I reserved the right to amend the Workplace Relations Complaint Form to include complaints disclosed by the facts pleaded and canvassed at hearing but not expressly pleaded under the relevant statutory provisions by the Complainant.

Accordingly, I considered the documented but unlabelled complaints as arising under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. I invited further submissions from the Complainant in respect of the ancillary claims for unpaid wages, notice pay, and payment in lieu of annual leave. In my correspondence, I noted that these claims appeared to be outside the applicable statutory time limits and afforded the Complainant an opportunity to make submissions as to why time should be extended. The Respondent was likewise afforded an opportunity to comment but did not do so.

I permitted the parties to make such submissions as they considered relevant and, where appropriate, made my own enquiries. Having satisfied myself that all relevant evidence and submissions had been received, I formally closed the hearing.

Background:

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 29 May 2022 until 12 December 2024. On that date, the Respondent ceased trading following enforcement action, and the Complainant’s employment terminated with immediate effect, without notice, consultation, or payment of outstanding wages or accrued annual leave.

The Respondent subsequently confirmed in writing that the role was redundant and that statutory redundancy was due; however, no payments were made. The Respondent also indicated that it is insolvent, has no assets, and is unable to discharge its liabilities. The Complainant contends that all statutory and contractual entitlements remain unpaid and seeks redress in respect of same.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was employed from 29 May 2022 to 12 December 2024, when their employment ended due to the respondent’s business ceasing trading. They were informed on 12 December 2024 that their employment had terminated with immediate effect, without prior notice, consultation, or process.

On that date the business closed (including reported sheriff enforcement), no notice or payment in lieu was provided and outstanding wages and accrued annual leave were not paid

Subsequently, the respondent confirmed in writing that the role was redundant, statutory redundancy was owed and payment would issue by February 2025, however, no payments were made.

The Respondent further confirmed earlier to the Commission that the company is insolvent, has no assets, cannot discharge debts, and no liquidator has been appointed. The Complainant’s position is that redundancy and entitlements were acknowledged but remain unpaid due to insolvency and seeks award of the amounts claimed.

The complainant calculates average weekly pay at €333.03 (26.12 hours at €12.75 per hour).

The complainant claims the following :

Outstanding Wage € 600.36

Notice Pay € 666.06

18 days annual leave €1198.91 (On the basis of a 5-day week, the daily rate is , so pay in lieu of 18 days is: Rounded to the nearest cent, the amount due is €1,198.91 gross)

Redundancy (Stat) €2031.48 (statutory redundancy) based on an average working week of €333.00 for and average weekly hours of 26.12 for 2.55 years of service is a total of €2,031.48

The total claim set out by the facts of the Complainant case are €4,496.81

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Although this was not known to me at the hearing, the Respondent had written to the Commission in advance to confirm that it could not attend and to provide an update on its position. It stated that, following enforcement action, the Sheriff had seized the company’s assets, leaving it without assets or funds. No liquidator had been appointed, and the Respondent was unable to make any payment in respect of the claim.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complaint was presented under the Redundancy Payments Acts only . However, having regard to the factual circumstances as set out in the complaint form and submissions and oral evidence I am satisfied that the matters complained of relate to alleged non-payment of wages and annual leave. I have therefore treated the complaints as arising under that Act and the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

The Respondent is on notice and although not known at the time of the Hearing had written to eh Commission that write on behalf of the now defunct company to provide a brief factual update regarding its current status. Attempts were made to contact the Respondent on that morning all being unsuccessful, I waited a customary 15 minutes before opening the hearing and 20 minutes late the Respondent had still not appeared. Having waited 24 hours and having had sight of the email sent by the Respondent I am satisfied that they were on proper notice and that no further explanation will be given or application sought to rehear the matter.

The Respondent is not in a position to dispute the facts of the Complainant’s employment or the circumstances surrounding the termination of employment nor is it in a position to make any payment in respect of the claim.

I have considered the ancillary issues that emerged on a simple reading of the Complainant submissions in relation and for which I invited further submissions. The Respondent submission was copied to the Respondent for which I received no response. The Complainant submits that the delay arose due to the Respondent's closure and insolvency, together with ongoing indications that outstanding payments would be addressed. Once it became apparent that payment would not be made, the Complainant referred the matter to the WRC and accordingly seeks an extension of time for the claims concerned.

The Labour Court has provided clear and well-established guidance regarding the extension of statutory time limits. Having considered the reasons advanced by the Complainant, I am not satisfied that reasonable cause has been established so as to warrant an extension of time in respect of the claims for unpaid wages, annual leave, and minimum notice. Accordingly, I find those unlabelled complaints to be out of time.

However, I am satisfied that the claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts was presented within the applicable statutory time limit. I have found the sworn evidence of the Complainant to be credible and reliable and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the evidence of the Complainant.

I find the complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts to be well founded and determine that, subject to the Complainant's service constituting insurable employment for the purposes of the Redundancy Payments Acts and the satisfaction of the statutory qualifying conditions, the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum of €2,031.48, calculated on the basis of average weekly remuneration of €333.00, average weekly hours of 26.12, and 2.55 years' reckonable service.

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, Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

I find the Redundancy Payment Act complaint to be well founded and determine that, subject to the Complainant's service constituting insurable employment for the purposes of the Redundancy Payments Acts and the satisfaction of the statutory qualifying conditions, the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum of €2,031.48, calculated on the basis of average weekly remuneration of €333.00, average weekly hours of 26.12, and 2.55 years' reckonable service.

Dated: 25/09/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL

Key Words: