ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00063623
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Noreen McCormack | Nera Investments Ltd |
Representatives | Self-represented | No attendance |
Complaint:
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-00077257-001 | 06/11/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00077257-002 | 06/11/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00077257-003 | 06/11/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00077257-004 | 06/11/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/08/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaints. The hearing was held in the Hearing Rooms of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Carlow. The complainant Ms. McCormack attended the hearing and gave evidence under oath. There was no representative of the respondent in attendance at the hearing.
The complainant was advised that in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, employment rights complaints before the WRC are held in public and the decision would not be anonymised unless there were special circumstances. There was no application to have the matter heard in private or to have the decision anonymised.
Background:
The complaints involve compensation for working Sunday, not being issued with a contract of employment, a reduction in wages and minimum notice. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Summary of Ms. Mc Cormack’s Evidence The complainant gave testimony that she did not receive a contract of employment during her employment up to 28th August 2025. She worked 8 hours per week as a Cook/Cleaner for the respondent company from September 2023. She worked full-time from September 2024 and was paid €680.00 gross per week. She said that her pay was reduced on 10th July 2025 to €540.00 gross per week. She put into evidence two payslips to demonstrate the reduction in weekly pay of €140.00 gross. She was informed that she was being let go in late August 2025 and was not paid the minimum notice. She worked Sundays from September 2024 up to March 2025 and did not receive a premium payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no respondent representative in attendance at the hearing. I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00077257-001- Sunday Premium Complaint The complaint was received by the WRC on 6th November 2025, so the cognisable period runs from 7th May 2025 onwards. As the complainant gave testimony that no premium payment was made up to March 2025, I decide that this complaint is out of time. I decide this complaint is not well founded.
CA-00077257-002- Terms of Employment Complaint The Act provides for the employer to issue to employee’s certain statements on terms of employment. The complainant’s uncontested testimony was that she did not receive a contract of employment as per the Act.
In accordance with Section 7 of the Act, I declare that the complaint is well founded.
As per Section 7, there is provision to pay the employee compensation of such amount as the Adjudication Officer considers just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration.
I consider the breaches of the Act to be serious as the complainant was denied her statutory right to the terms of her employment over a considerable period.
As this is a serious breach, I order the employer pay to the employee the equivalent of 4 weeks’ pay which is €2720.00. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a statutory right and is not remuneration or arrears of remuneration.
CA-00077257-003- Payment of Wages Complaint The Law Payment of Wages Act, 1991
Section 5(1) of the Act provides that an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee unless the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or the employee has given his prior consent in writing.
Finding
In Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 the High Court held that when considering a complaint under the 1991 Act, it must first be established the wages which were properly payable before considering whether a deduction had been made. The complainant gave uncontested testimony that she was paid €680.00 gross from September 2024 up until 10th July 2025. Her pay was then reduced by €140.00 gross up to the end of employment which was seven weeks. It has already been decided that a contract of employment did not issue. The wages of €680.00 gross were paid from September 2024 up to 10th July 2025. It was therefore well established that these wages were properly payable. I am satisfied that these wages became an implied contractual term.
I decide this complaint is well-founded, and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant a gross amount of €980.00 (7 weeks at €140.00).
CA-00077257-004- Minimum Notice Complaint The Law
Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 (“the 1973 Act”) provides:
“(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section. (2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be— (a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week . . . . ”
Finding The complainant gave uncontested testimony of her employment duration which was just less than two years. As provided in the Act, the complainant is entitled to a weeks’ notice. I decide the complainant is well founded and order that the respondent pay one week’s salary of €680.00 gross to the complainant. |
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-00077257-001- Sunday Premium Complaint I decide this complaint is not well founded. CA-00077257-002- Terms of Employment Complaint I decide that the complaint is well founded. I order the employer pay to the employee the equivalent of 4 weeks’ pay which is €2720.00. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a statutory right and is not remuneration or arrears of remuneration. CA-00077257-003- Payment of Wages Complaint I decide this complaint is well-founded, and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant a gross amount of €980.00 (7 weeks at €140.00). CA-00077257-004- Minimum Notice Complaint I decide the complaint is well founded and order that the respondent pay a week’s salary of €680.00 gross to the complainant. |
Dated: 3rd of September 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Terms of Employment, Payment of Wages |