ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056277
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Paul Lancaster | 8 Star Energy Pty Limited |
Representatives | Thomas Dowling Hogan Dowling McNamara Solicitors LLP | 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 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00068519-001 | 17/12/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00068519-002 | 17/12/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/07/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
The attendees 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. Additionally, the attendees were informed that the hearing was to be held in public; the attendees offered me neither objection nor reason to have the hearing held in private. Accordingly, the sole witness made an affirmation to be truthful with the Commission.
In attendance were the Complainant, the Respondent did not appear and was not represented. I am satisfied that the Respondent is properly on notice. The Complainant gave evidence under affirmation. No other witnesses were produced, and no cross-examination was necessary.
In coming to my decision, I have fully considered the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties, and the written and oral submissions of the parties.
Background:
This complaint was referred to the Commission in duplicate at the same time as the identical complaints under ADJ-00056274 for which a decision has already been issued.
I am required to issue a decision in this matter as well for legal reasons to complete the file and finalise the complaint.
This decision has no bearing on the decision issued in ADJ-00056274 where the identical complaints under that heading were decided as well-founded. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complaints under this heading are identical to the complaints under the well-founded ADJ-00056274 |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As I have outlined above, the complaints under this heading ADJ-00056277 are identical to the complaints under the heading ADJ-00056274. The Complaints under ADJ-00056274 were decided as well- founded and that remains the case. The Complaints under this heading (ADJ-00056277) are, for technical reasons, not well-founded. This has no bearing on the complaints under ADJ-00056274 which remains well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the reasons outlined above, for technical reasons to complete the file and finalise the mistaken duplicate complaints, I find the complaints under the heading ADJ-00056277 to be not well founded in the given circumstances they being duplicates. |
Dated: 15/12/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore
Key Words:
Technical finding on a duplicated complaint. |