ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00065211
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Tom Moloney | Bunratty Shopping Village Ltd |
Representatives | Patrick Kinsella, Advisor | Ken Stafford, Consultant |
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-00079147-001 | 05/01/2026 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/09/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation may be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The Hearing too place completely in public and the required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties. Full cross examination of Witnesses was allowed.
At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided. I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a “…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Chef and submitted a complaint regarding the non payment of holidays, public holiday, overtime and time in lieu spanning from 2018 to 2025.. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was employed as a Chef from 14/3/2018 to 4/9/2025. The Complainant alleged he was due payments covering the period from 2018 to 2025 for unpaid holidays, public holidays, overtime and time in lieu. The complaint totalled 18,426 Euros made up of 6,507 Euros for non payment of wages and 11,917 Euros for unpaid holidays and holidays/public holidays/toil carried forward. The Complainant submitted a detailed analysis over each week/year as to what he alleged was unpaid. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent denied any payments were due. The Respondent stated that the majority of the claim was statue barred and the cognisable period was approximately 10 weeks and that all prior claims had no legal status. The Respondent denied any overtime was contractually due. The Respondent advised that the payroll analysis showed that all liabilities for the year of 2025 had been paid and when the Complainant left the employment in September 2025 the Payroll Clerk paid any outstanding wages due to the amount of 3,187.89 Euros and that this discharged any possible liability that the Payroll Clerk, who it was maintained was a diligent and fair person, kept a record of any liability due to the Complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainants employment ended on September 4th 2025. The complaint was submitted on January 5th 2026. Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides: “(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.” The Parties were advised at the Hearing that based on the above legislation the cognisable period for the complaint is July 6th 2025 to January 5th 2026 but in effect the practical cognisable period is from July 6th 2025 to September 4th 2025, the date of the Complainants last day of work. The submission of the Complainant had been reviewed by the Adjudicator in advance of the Hearing and his Representative was advised at the Hearing that they must show that any liability they were claiming must be a liability due for payment in that cognisable period and be unpaid or a past liability that could be proven it carried forward legally or by agreement into the cognisable period. The Complainants claim covered a period from 2018 to 2025. The Respondent submitted documentation that any outstanding holidays and public holidays for 2025 were paid to the Complainant when he left the employment plus an amount of 3,187.89 Euros for any carried forward liabilities. Findings; The within claim is limited to the period of July 6th 2025 to September 4th 2025 (in practice) and the Respondent has shown that any liabilities for holidays and public holidays for 2025 have been paid to the Complainant. The Complainant did not establish a legal claim for any additional hours or breaks not taken within the cognisable period.
|
Decision:
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.
I find the complaint not well founded. |
Dated: 22nd of September 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Key Words:
Non payment of wages |