ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00064258
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Hafrun Eva Fridriksdottir | All Dogs Go To Fetch Limited |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
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-00077953-001 | 25/11/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00077953-002 | 25/11/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00077953-003 | 25/11/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/07/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant worked for the Respondent for five weeks and was paid weekly. She resigned after she ceased receiving pay despite receiving her last two pay slips. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation. She worked as a dog groomer paid at a rate of €14 an hour. This rate of pay was agreed when she started. The hours of work varied based on the appointments and types of dogs booked into the service but the working day averaged around 8 to 9 hours and the Complainant was rostered 5 days over 7. Pay was processed weekly and was supposed to be paid at the end of each week for the preceding week. The Complainant was paid her first weeks wages but then ran into issues. On the 7th of November the Complainant was issued with a payslip for the proceeding week but they pay never came through. That week included a bank holiday on the 27th of October which she didn’t work. The Complainant began messaging her manager. The same issue arose the following week and the Complainant decided to resign after her second week without pay. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. The WRC file shows a hearing notification was sent to their registered address as was copies of correspondence submitted by the Complainant to the WRC. In the circumstances I am satisfied they were on notice of the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00077953-001 and CA-00077953-002 under the Payment of Wages Act The Complainant was issued with a payslip dated the 07th of November 2025 showing she was owed €367.12 after taxes for that pay period. The Complainant was issued with a payslip dated the 21st of November showing she was owed €469.83 after taxes for that pay period. The Complainant’s unchallenged evidence, including bank statements, point to these sums not being paid. I am satisfied that these sums were properly payable to the Complainant but she was not paid them and they were deductions as defined by Section 5 subsection 6 of the Act. The Respondent has failed to provide any justification for this deduction, and it is therefore in breach of Section 5 of the Act. CA-00077953-003 Organisation of Working Time Act Section 21 of the Act required that the Complainant receive a paid day off for the Bank holiday which fell on the 27th of October. As outlined in the findings above, she did not receive this payment. Section 27 of the Act provides that I can require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration. In the circumstances I am of the view that compensation of €200 is just and equitable. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00077953-001 I find that the complaint is well founded and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €367.12 in compensation. CA-00077953-002 I find that the complaint is well founded and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €469.83 in compensation. CA-00077953-003 I find that the complaint is well founded and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €200 in compensation. |
Dated: 23 September 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|