ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00065381
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Nitanshu Chaudhari | Citrus Fm Limited Citrus Fm |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Did not appear and was not represented |
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-00079323-001 | 08/01/2026 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/08/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
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.
I have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal 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 minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals and only broad reasons need be given. I am required to set out such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision per MacMenamin J. in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63
The parties present were put under notice of the decision in the Zalewski case, that their evidence would be heard under oath or affirmation and of the penalty for perjury. Accordingly, the witnesses were advised of the penalty for perjury
Additionally, the parties were informed that they would be afforded an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and the hearing was to be held in public; the parties present offered me neither objection nor reason to have the hearing held in private.
For the Complainant the hearing was attended by the Complainant as a litigant in person, and they gave evidence under affirmation. No other witnesses were produced.
For the Respondent the hearing was unattended and without reason given. I have waited for a reason to be proffered by the Respondent, and none has been forthcoming. I note from the papers that on the 29th of January the Respondent provided the Commission with an email for the purposes of the complaint as daniel.obrien@citrus-services.co.uk the hearing notice was issued to the employer on the 16th of June by email. I am therefore satisfied that the Respondent is on proper notice of the proceedings. The postal address given to the Complainant by the Respondent is Citrus Facilities Management Lake Rd, Portsmouth PO1 4BD , consistent with their website address.
I allowed the parties present to make representation to me and, where appropriate, I mad e my own enquiries. Having asked the attendees, and having satisfied myself, that I had heard all the relevant submissions put to me I formally closed the hearing.
Background:
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a cleaner between November and December 2025. They submit that they worked additional hours beyond their contracted hours and that these hours were not paid. The Complainant further contends that no payslips were provided and that access to the Respondent's attendance recording system was removed after payment queries were raised. The complaint is supported by contractual documentation, correspondence and other employment records. The Respondent did not attend the hearing or make any submissions in response to the complaint. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that they were employed as a cleaner from 25 November to 31 December 2025 at €14.03 per hour and regularly worked additional hours beyond their 12-hour weekly contract due to staff shortages. They contend that approximately 53 to 55 hours worked remain unpaid. The Complainant states that no wages or payslips were received and that access to the Respondent's Timegate attendance system was blocked after payment queries were raised. They rely on their contract, onboarding documents, correspondence, bank statements and records held within the Respondent's attendance and payroll systems. The Complainant claims unpaid wages of €743.59, holiday pay of €59.49 and notice pay of €210.45, totalling €1,013.53. They submit that the non-payment caused financial hardship and significant stress during examinations and seek redress under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Did not appear and was not represented |
Findings and Conclusions:
In a complaint brought under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the burden of proof rests initially upon the Complainant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that wages properly payable were not paid or that an unlawful deduction was made from wages. The Complainant must adduce sufficient evidence of an entitlement to the wages claimed and of the alleged non-payment or deduction. Once a prima facie case has been established, an evidential burden may arise requiring the Respondent to provide records, explanations or other evidence to rebut the claim. In determining the complaint, I apply the civil standard of proof, namely whether it is more likely than not that the facts asserted have been established. Where relevant payroll, attendance or time-recording records are within the possession or control of the Respondent, the absence of such records may be a factor to be considered in assessing whether the evidential burden has been discharged. However, no rebuttal evidence has been put to me. Where a complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is upheld, the Adjudication Officer may direct the employer to pay compensation of such amount as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. The award may not exceed the net amount of the wages that were unlawfully deducted or withheld. The purpose of the remedy is compensatory rather than punitive and is directed towards making good the loss arising from the contravention. The Complainant also claims payment in lieu of notice. However, no complaint has been referred under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts. My jurisdiction in this matter derives solely from section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Accordingly, I confine my consideration to the question of whether wages properly payable to the Complainant were unlawfully withheld by the Respondent. The claim for notice pay does not fall to be determined in these proceedings. In such circumstances where the Respondent has failed to appear despite being on proper notice they cannot shift the burden imposed on them by the Complainant sworn evidence. The Complainant struck me as a highly credible witness and I take their evidence at face value. Accordingly I find their complaint well-founded and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant claims unpaid wages in the amount of €743.59 and holiday pay of €59.49 to a total of €803.08 gross. |
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 well-founded and direct the Respondent to Respondent to pay the Complainant claims unpaid wages in the amount of €743.59 and holiday pay of €59.49 to a total of €803.08 gross |
Dated: 17/09/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act 1991, Unpaid Earnings, Holiday Pay, Burden of Proof, Failure to Attend Hearing, |