ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057371
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Philip Hughes | Leeson Catering Ltd. Indochine Restaurant - Myles Kirby (Liquidator) |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Self-represented. | Did not attend and made no submissions |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00069711-001 | 03/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00069711-002 | 03/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00069711-003 | 03/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
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.
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 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 offered me neither objection nor reason to have the hearing held in private. Accordingly, witnesses made an affirmation to be truthful with the Commission, and the Interpreter was likewise
In attendance were the Complainant, who gave evidence under affirmation. No other witnesses were produced, and the Respondent was not in attendance.
In coming to my decision, I have fully considered the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the party, and the written and oral submissions on behalf 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 “…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…”.
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
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Head Chef by the Respondent since the 01/08/2022 at one of its restaurants, the group now in liquidation. The Complainant was paid €1000 gross weekly He was not represented at the hearing, and the Liquidator was properly on notice and declined to attend. Having heard all the evidence preferred, the hearing was formally and properly closed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Complaint CA-00069711-001 The complainant alleges that they have not received their full entitlement to paid annual leave and payment for public holidays since commencing employment under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. Complaint CA-00069711-002 The complainant claims they have not received any payment for public holidays over a period of approximately two and a half years. This complaint is also submitted under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. Complaint CA-00069711-003 The complainant states that upon leaving their employment, they were not compensated for accrued annual leave. They further allege that the employer offered a payment of €500, which they believe is significantly less than the value of the leave owed (estimated at three weeks). This complaint is likewise made under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent, a company in liquidation, did not attend. The Liquidator was properly on notice and did not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The evidence of the Complainant was given under affirmation was not contested by the Respondent. Under Complaint CA-00069711-001 The Complainant alleges that they have not received their full entitlement to paid annual leave and payment for public holidays since commencing employment under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The Complainant would have had an entitlement to 20 days leave under statute to the value of €200 per day to a total value of €4,000.00 that are properly payable. T the Complainant sets out the public holidays unpaid and these are addressed in the following complaint. This complaint is well founded, and the Respondent should make payable €4,000 gross to the Complainant for annual leave not discharged nor compensated. Complaint CA-00069711-002 The complainant claims they have not received any payment for public holidays over a period of approximately two and a half years. This complaint is also submitted under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The Complainant set out that they did not receive time off nor pay in lieu of public holidays to a total of 10. This amount would amount to €2,000 properly payable. This complaint is well founded, and the Respondent should make payable €2,000 gross to the Complainant in lieu of public holidays not properly paid nor compensated. Complaint CA-00069711-003 The complainant states that upon leaving their employment, they were not compensated for accrued annual leave. They further allege that the employer offered a payment of €500, which they believe is significantly less than the value of the leave owed (estimated at three weeks). This complaint is likewise made under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. This complaint is addressed in Complaint CA-00069711-001 above and is not well founded under the heading Complaint CA-00069711-003. |
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.
CA-00069711-001 and CA-00069711-002 For the reasons set out above the CA-00069711-001 and CA-00069711-002 are well founded and the Respondent should pay the Complainant €6,000 gross as monies properly payable. CA-00069711-003. For the reason set out above CA-00069711-003 is not well founded. |
Dated: 9th of December 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore
Key Words:
|