ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00064779

Parties:

Complaints:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  07/09/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

Procedure:

1. In accordance with section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, these complaints were assigned to me by the Director General. The hearing opened on June 8th 2026 for the parties to have an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaints.  The complainant, Mr Guilherme Masiero Dos Santos attended and represented himself; however, no one attended to represent the respondent, Waybalmo Limited.  When I reviewed the documents on the case file, I was not satisfied that the respondent was properly on notice.  On June 24th, the documents related to the complaint and the notice of the re-scheduled hearing on September 7th 2026 were sent to the correct registered address of the respondent.  The complainant attended at the appointed time of 9.30 on September 7th, but on this second occasion, no one attended to represent his former employer.  As I am satisfied that the respondent was properly on notice, I proceeded with the hearing and I have reached the conclusions below based solely on the evidence of the complainant.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

2. On December 10th 2021, the complainant commenced in a role as a bar tender in a pub and restaurant run by the respondent. When that business closed temporarily over the Christmas and new year holidays, he was offered a job as a support worker in emergency accommodation managed by the respondent on behalf of Dublin City Council’s services for homeless families.  In late January 2022, he was offered a permanent role in the homeless hostel, while he continued to work part-time in the bar.  When the bar ceased trading, he worked full-time in the emergency accommodation, alternating between two houses, one on Dorset Street, Dublin 1 and the other on Merrion Road, Dublin 4.  In August 2022, he transferred to the Merrion Road house on a full-time basis, although he provided relief and holiday cover in Dorset Street and in a third house in Rathmines which opened in 2023.  He said that he worked for 42 hours per week and that his average weekly pay in 2025 was €676.94.
3. In the documents he submitted for the hearing, the complainant included a copy of his contract of employment. His employer is stated to be “JSRE Limited,” with an address at the premises in Dorset Street where he worked as a support worker in homeless accommodation.  His start date is given as December 10th 2021.  The complainant said that he never received any wages from this company.  From December 2021 until March 2022, his wages were paid by Somerset Tavern Limited, although in January 2022, he was paid by a company called Duke Property Acquisitions Limited.  From April 2022, until his employment ended in December 2025, he was paid by the respondent, Waybalmo Limited.
4. On November 24th 2025, the complainant said that the staff in the house in Merrion Road were called to a meeting by the house manager, Ms Janice Dunne. Four of the six employees assigned to the house were available to attend the meeting and the complainant was one of the four.  Ms Dunne informed the staff that the house had been sold and that the new owner intended to retain only the two employees with the longest service.  The complainant and three of his colleagues were informed that their roles were redundant.
5. In the documents he submitted in advance of the hearing, the complainant included a copy of an email from Ms Dunne dated November 27th 2025. The email is copied to the managing director, Mr Joe Somerville and the company secretary, Ms Cara Dunne, who, the complainant understands, was the operations manager.  In her email, Ms Dunne confirmed to the complainant that his job was redundant and issued him with two weeks’ notice of the termination of his employment.  Ms Dunne wrote,

“Please be assured that you will receive any redundancy payments, calculated for each year you have worked with the company.”

6. On December 3rd, Ms Dunne wrote a letter to the complainant with the following details:

“Re: End of Employment due to Redundancy

We are writing to confirm that your employment with Waybalmo will end due to redundancy.  The service is being sold, and the new owner does not have a role for you, resulting in your position being made redundant.

Details of your employment: Start Date: 10th December 2021.  Last Rostered Day: 5th December 2025.  Notice Period Ends: 7th December 2025

You will receive redundancy payments as applicable. If you have any queries, please contact us.

Best regards,

Janice Dunne”

7. The complainant finished working with the respondent on December 5th 2025. He didn’t receive a redundancy payment and he wasn’t paid for his outstanding holidays.  On December 12th, he sent an email to Mr Somerville, Ms Janice Dunne (house manager) and Ms Cara Dunne (operations manager) in which he asked about the payments due to him.  The operations manager replied within a few minutes and said,

“Hi Guilherme,

Accounts are currently processing the redundancy and remaining annual leave payments. Once their calculations are complete, we will follow up with you regarding the final amounts owed at an appropriate time. 

Thank you for your email.

Best regards,

Cara Dunne”

8. Five days later, on December 17th, the complainant still hadn’t received his redundancy lump sum or his holiday pay and he wrote again to the operations manager. Ms Dunne replied the following day and informed the complainant that “Once the accounts team has completed the necessary calculations, all outstanding payments will be processed in the next pay cycle.”
9. He didn’t receive any payments however, and, on December 29th, he wrote again to Mr Somerville and to Ms Cara Dunne and Ms Janice Dunne, seeking payment and telling them that he was considering making a complaint to the WRC. On December 31st, he submitted these complaints, alleging breaches of section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 and section 23 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 in relation to pay for holidays at the cessation of employment.
10. Ms Cara Dunne wrote to the complainant on January 13th and informed him that once the process of finalising legal details was complete, “the outstanding funds will be allocated to your account.” The complainant didn’t receive any funds, and, when he wrote to Ms Dunne again on February 9th 2026, he didn’t get a reply.
11. The complainant’s case is that he is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum, based on his service with the respondent from December 10th 2021 until his employment was terminated on December 7th 2025. He also claims an entitlement to pay for 80 hours of holidays not taken up to the date of his termination.

Findings and Conclusions:

Complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967

12. Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 sets out five specific circumstances in which an employee may be entitled to a redundancy payment, the first of which is:
    • (a) the fact his employer has ceased or intends to cease to carry on the business for the purpose of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed[.]

The third circumstance in which an employee may be entitled to a redundancy payment is at subsection (c):

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise[.]

13. The complainant’s employer sold the house where he was employed and the new owner decided to carry on the business with fewer employees. In these circumstances, the complainant’s job as a homeless services support worker has become redundant.  As he has completed more than two years of service, he is entitled to a redundancy payment.

Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

14. The respondent did not attend the hearing and did not submit any records of the complainant’s holidays. Based on the evidence of the complainant, I am satisfied that he is entitled to pay for 80 hours, equivalent to 10 days’ holidays not taken at the termination of his employment.

Decision:

CA-00079041-001:  Complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

15. I decide that this complaint is well founded and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant a statutory redundancy payment, based on his start date of December 10th 2021, his termination date of December 7th 2025 and his wages capped at €600.00 per week. This calculation is on condition that the complainant’s service is reckonable and in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Redundancy Payments Act.  Statutory redundancy payments are tax free and are not subject to deductions for PRSI or USC.

CA-00079043-001:  Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

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.

16. I decide that this complaint is well founded and that the complainant is entitled to pay for annual leave not taken at the termination of his employment. The information provided by the complainant shows that he was paid fortnightly and he was paid varying amounts, depending on the hours he worked.  Pay for annual leave at the cessation of employment is set out in a statutory instrument, the Organisation of Working Time (Determination of Pay for Holidays) Regulations 1997.  At section 3(3)(a) of the Regulations, “normal weekly pay” for an employee whose wages vary from week to week is based on an average of weekly pay in the 13 weeks before the date of termination.
17. I have reviewed the wages information provided by the complainant and I am satisfied that, in the final 13 weeks of his employment his average weekly pay was €587.29. I therefore direct the respondent to pay him €1,174.58 in holiday pay.  As this award is compensation for a breach of a statutory right, it is not subject to deductions for tax, PRSI or USC.

Dated:   9th of September 2026.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

Key Words:  Redundancy pay, holiday pay at termination of employment.