ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060361

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Gordon Forde	Three Steps Ltd

Representatives

Self-represented

Declan Brooks, Shanley Solicitors LLP

Complaint:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015	CA-00073129-001	04/07/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/12/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering

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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint.

The complaint was heard by way of a remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020 - Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 (Section 31) (Workplace Relations Commission) (Designation) Order, 2020 which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. In attendance for the Respondent was Mr Declan Brooks, Solicitor; Mr Mike Kelly, Director; and Mr Cathal McAuliffe, Chairman of the Board. The Complainant was not represented.

At the outset of the adjudication hearing the parties were advised that in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 employment rights and equality hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) are held in public and the decision would not be anonymised unless there were special circumstances for doing so. There was no application to have the matter heard in private or to have the decision anonymised.

In coming to my decision, I have taken account of the relevant evidence and written submissions before me.

Background:

The Complainant is a social care worker. He selected the following complaint type on the WRC complaint form: “I do not receive the minimum rate(s) of pay set out in a Sectoral Employment Order (SEO)”. The Respondent submits that it is not aware of any SEO applicable to the Respondent or the Complainant.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant told the hearing he requested a pay review in June 2024. Management advised the Complainant it was engaged in a process of reviewing salaries and that pay increases would be rolled out. In July 2025 the Complainant advised management that he intended to refer the matter to the WRC. The Complainant confirmed he received a pay increase in September 2025, but a promised second increase was not yet forthcoming.

In response to questions from the Adjudication Officer the Complainant confirmed that neither an SEO nor a Registered Employment Agreement applied to him. The Complainant outlined that he did not know what legislation to select on the complaint form and that he selected the SEO for the Construction sector as the form required a selection to be made. He confirmed there is a grievance procedure in place within the Respondent company and that he is open to and can utilise same with respect to his concerns on pay.

The Complainant welcomed the Respondent’s commitment to engaging with him to resolve his grievance in relation to his pay.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent provides residential services. It was not on notice of any formal grievance. The Respondent is not aware of any SEO affecting its business or the Complainant.

The Respondent is engaged in a process of reviewing pay for all staff. A pay rise was implemented in September 2025, and the Complainant was a beneficiary of this increase. A further pay increase is to be implemented in December 2025. Mr Brooks outlined the challenges faced by the Respondent in implementing pay increases for staff and for the Complainant specifically.

The Complainant is a valued member of staff, and the Respondent is committed to hearing his concerns and resolving matters internally if possible.

Findings and Conclusions:

Relevant Law

The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“the 2015 Act”) makes provision inter alia for a system of Registered Employment Agreements and Sectoral Employment Orders.

Section 23 of the 2015 Act provides:

“(1) This section applies to a decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Act of 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of— (a) subsection (1) of section 20, (b) a registered employment agreement (within the meaning of Chapter 2), or (c) a sectoral employment order (within the meaning of Chapter 3).

(2) A decision of an adjudication officer to which this section applies shall do one or more of the following, namely— (a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

. . . . ”

Findings

It was common case the Respondent and the Complainant are not covered by an SEO or a Registered Employment Agreement. Accordingly, I find this complaint under the 2015 Act is misconceived.

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 decide this complaint of a contravention of a Sectoral Employment Order is not well founded.

Dated: 15th December 2025.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering

Key Words:

Complaint misconceived.