Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Thomas  Travers

KPMG

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Thomas Travers

KPMG

Representatives

  Self

Alison Devine Addleshaw Goddard (Ireland) LLP

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00067404-001

15/11/2024

The first hearing was scheduled for the 18th of March 2025 and the Respondent lodged their submission late and is dated on the file the 13th of March 2025.  The Complainant objected to the hearing proceeding arising from the late application. While the procedures require that parties lodge all documentation that they wish to rely on no later than 15 days before the scheduled date of hearing. As that did not occur and the Complainant who was unrepresented objected strongly to the matter proceeding, the case was put back to another date.

The Complaint was lodged with the Commission on the 15th of November 2025 and the complaint is as follows:

My weekly wage was not paid on the 7th November 2024. I made enquiries on the 8th of November and was told in a phone call from Vanessa Connolly that the monies were sent from the bank responsible for paying the amount. At the end of of the day I returned a phone call to Vanessa Connolly to say that the monies had not been lodged in my bank. I was in the country at the time. I would have liked to be paid at the time as I wanted to return to Dublin. I have not heard anything back from Vanessa Connolly since. This is not the first time where this has happened. My wages were very late being paid in August 2024 I should have receiver my wages on 22nd of August 2024 but did not receive them until 28th August 2024

At the time of the hearing the wages had been paid on the 17th of November 2024.

The Complainant proceeded with his complaint on the second day although payment had been made and the Respondent submission clearly stated that KPMG were not the employer. The Company were providing services to a liquidator who had been appointed to provide services to the liquidators. The Respondent wrote to the Complainant as follows:

21 November 2024 By Email submissions@workplacerela�ons.ie Re: Alladdin Associates Limited (In Members Voluntary Liquidation) (the “Company”) Complaint Ref: CA-00067404 Dear Sir/ Madam, Please be advised that Brendan O’Reilly and Shane McCarthy were appointed as Joint Liquidators of the above named Company on 26 July 2024, by way of Members’ Written Resolution. We confirm receipt of your letterr dated 19 November 2024 and request that you direct all future correspondence to the following postal address: Interpath Advisory Riverside Two Sir John Rogerson's Quay Dublin 2 Ireland D02 KV60 Please note that the Employer is the above named Company and not KPMG. If you require anything further at this �me, please do not hesitate to contact us.

The Respondent has made a preliminary application for the matter before the Adjudicator to be dismissed as the Respondent is not the employer.

See preliminary matter

See preliminary matter.

The Complainant has brought the claim against the wrong party, as the company Alladdin Associates Limited (In Members Voluntary Liquidation) (the “Company”) continue to be the legal entity to bring a claim against and not the Respondent who provides services to the Liquidator.

In any case the wages have been paid. The Complainant is looking for an apology from the Respondent and the Respondent stated that it had already done so, in so far as the service that they provided to the Liquidator relating to payroll processing encountered a technical glitch that caused the delay. That apology was verbal.

The legal situation is clear and that is the wrong Respondent has been named. The matter is now moot other than an apology which is still in dispute between the parties as payment has been made.

Allowing for the circumstances of this case I must determine that I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint as the wrong party has been named as the Respondent. The effect of this decision does not negatively affect the Complainant as he has been paid.

I recommend that KPMG provide a written apology and detail how the delay occurred; however, that is entirely a matter for KPMG to comply with as no legal obligation arises from the recommendation.

Section 42 of the 2015 Act provides for the following:

42. (1) An adjudication officer may, at any time, dismiss a complaint or dispute referred to him or her under section 41 if he or she is of the opinion that it is frivolous or vexatious.

(2) (a) A person whose complaint or dispute is dismissed in accordance with this section may, not later than 42 days from its dismissal, appeal the dismissal to the Labour Court.

(b) A person shall, when bringing an appeal under this subsection, give notice to the Commission in writing of the bringing of the appeal.

(c) A notice referred to in paragraph (b) shall specify the grounds upon which the appeal is brought.

(3) Upon the hearing of an appeal under this section, the Labour Court may—

(a) affirm the decision of the adjudication officer dismissing the complaint or dispute concerned, or

(b) annul that decision and refer the complaint or dispute to the Director General.

The terms frivolous and vexatious are legal terms and are not in any way a comment on the importance of the complaint to the Complainant. They mean that there is no legal redress to the Commission as the wrong party has been named. It is also a moot claim as the wages have been paid, on behalf of his employer Alladdin Associates Limited (In Members Voluntary Liquidation) (the “Company”).

I dismiss the complaint for the reasons as detailed.

Wrong Party.