ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057083
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Conor Ryan | EI Travel trading as City Sightseeing Tours |
Representatives |
| Mr. Nelson Jacob – Group Financial Controller |
Complaint:
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-00069424-001 | 20/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00069424-003 | 20/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. | CA-00069424-004 | 20/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/06/2025 and 22/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
The Complainant has brought a complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 and where such a complaint is presented, the Director General is empowered to refer that complaint forward for adjudication by an Adjudication Officer pursuant to Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. Following the said referral,it is incumbent on the assigned Adjudicator to make all relevant enquiries into the complaint. This will include hearing oral evidence, considering submissions made and receiving other relevant evidence.
In particular, the Complainant herein has referred the following complaint:
A complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.
In addition to the foregoing, the Complainant herein has referred two matters for adjudication as provided for under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 in circumstances where a Contract of Service has commenced and where the said Employee employed by an Employer is entitled to have been provided (within two months of the commencement of the employee’s employment with the employer) with a Statement of certain Terms of the employment.
The said terms are specified in Section 3 of the 1994 Act and include items such as names, addresses and place of work. There should also be a job title and a description of the nature of the work. The start date and the nature/duration of the Contract should be included in the statement as well as the terms of the remuneration. This statement should be dated and signed with copies retained by both parties.
The Act also provides that an employer must notify the Employee of any changes in the particulars already detailed in the Statement of Terms. This is set out in Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 which puts the onus on an employer to notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of change in any of the particulars of the statement as provided by the Employer. The obligation does not extend to a change occurring in provision of statutes and instruments made under statute.
Background:
This matter was listed on two separate occasions. WRC resources were set aside to deal with this matter on the 30/06/2025 and again on 22/09/2025. This matter was to be heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party would have been prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way. In response to the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021 ]IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021), I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice. Had evidence been given it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came intoeffecton the 29th of July 2021, and which said legislation accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence. The complaint herein was brought to the attention of the WRC on the 20th of February 2025 by way of a workplace relations complaint form. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant has set out his various complaints in the workplace relations complaint form as provided. The complaints are not fully particularised, and I would require oral evidence to fully understand the nature and extent of the Complainant’s cause of action. The first time this mater was listed for hearing, the Complainant contacted the offices of the WRC on the day before the hearing time allocated. The Complainant’s email read as follows:
Hi Owen, I am feeling unwell, and would like to postpone tomorrow's meeting please? Can you please do this and reschedule it for another day? Many thanks, Conor. I am satisfied that the Complainant was contacted directly before this hearing was due to commence and he was advised that this matter would proceed on the basis that the Complainant did not attend unless the Complainant provided an unambiguous medical certificate within 24 hours of the scheduled hearing. The Complainant did provide a medical certificate. This matter was then listed for a second time. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified on the date time and place for the second hearing by a letter emailed to him on the 24th of July 2025. The Complainant did not attend on the second hearing date and did not attend looking for a postponement; despite having been advised to do so should he not be in a position to attend. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent herein attended in the person of its Managing Director – Mr. Davies on the first date and by Mr. Jacob (the Financial Officer) on the second day. Other witnesses were also in attendance. I note that the Respondent had provided me with a substantial amount of paperwork and submission in advance of the hearing. The Respondent witnesses attended on the day to resist and defend the claims being made by the Complainant. Not without cause, the Respondent witnesses were not best pleased that the Complainant did not attend and provided such short notice for his non-attendance on the first date and with no advance notice on the second date. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the circumstances outlined, I confirm that I am not minded to allow any further postponement. The Complainant has had this matter listed twice – using a considerable amount of WRC resources. At no time has the Complainant attended a hearing to prosecute his claim. |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00069424-001 - The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the Complainant did not attend to give evidence. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00069424-003 - The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the Complainant did not attend to give evidence. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. CA-00069424-004 - The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the Complainant did not attend to give evidence.
|
Dated: 16-12-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|