ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00061741

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  17/11/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Christina Ryan

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 parties are named in the heading of the Decision. For ease of reference, for the remainder of the document I will refer Ronald Bujdei as “the Complainant”, Libra Transport as “the Respondent” and Tom Duffy as “Mr. Duffy”.

The Complainant referred a complaint against the within Respondent under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 on the 11th May 2025 under reference ADJ-00058736. He referred a further two complaints against the within Respondent, one under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 on the 14th June 2025 and one under the Payment of Wages of Act 1991 on the 15th June 2025 under reference ADJ-00059664. He referred the within complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 on the 16th August 2025 and a fourth complaint against a different Respondent under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 on the 2nd October 2025 under reference ADJ-00062316.

The complaints bearing file references ADJ-00058736, ADJ-00059664, ADJ-00061741 and ADJ-00062316 were scheduled, convened and heard together by way of a remote hearing on the 17th November 2025 pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. At the hearing the Complainant relied on the same set of allegations in respect of all four complaints. He confirmed that all four complaints were duplicates of one another as they related to the same issue namely the payment of outstanding holiday pay when his employment ended.

When I opened the hearing and was in the process of introducing myself the Complainant interjected and stated that he just wanted a decision so he could appeal it to the District Court. I explained that pursuant to section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 an appeal from a decision of an Adjudication Officer is to the Labour Court.

I advised that in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and that the Decision would not be anonymised unless there were special circumstances for doing otherwise. Whilst there was an application by Mr. Duffy to have the matter heard in private and the Decision anonymised on the basis that the allegations made by the Complainant in the correspondence and documentation sent by him to the WRC were malicious and vexatious I am not satisfied that special circumstances existed.   

I further advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation.  The Complainant gave his evidence under Oath and Mr. Duffy gave his evidence under Affirmation.

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.

In advance of the hearing Mr. Duffy wrote to the WRC advising that Zsts Express Limited was the legal entity that employed the Complainant and that Zsts Express Limited was the correct Respondent. Mr. Duffy raised the issue again at the commencement of the hearing and I indicated that I would address it as a preliminary issue. The Complainant stated that he believed Libra Transport was the correct Respondent. I referred the Complainant to documentation submitted by him to the WRC, which included payslips, which identified his employer was “Zsts Express Limited” and I explained why complaints needed to be referred against the correct legal entity and the correct Respondent named in any Decision. I asked if he had any application to amend the name of the within Respondent to Zsts Express Limited and he stated that he had no application to make and replied that “all claims against Libra Transport”. I sought to clarify whether this included the claim under reference ADJ-00062316 which named Zsts Express Limited as the Respondent and he stated unequivocally on a number of occasions that as far as he was concerned the correct Respondent in relation to all four complaints, bearing references ADJ-00058736, ADJ-00059664, ADJ-00061741 and ADJ-00062316 was Libra Transport and that he was proceeding against Libra Transport only under all four complaint. For the avoidance of doubt I asked the Complainant if he was seeking to amend the name of the Respondent named in the complaint under reference ADJ-00062316 to “Libra Transport” and he replied that yes he was. Whilst Mr. Duffy indicated that he did not understand why the Complainant was doing so he consented to the amendment of the name of the Respondent in ADJ-00062316 to “Libra Transport”. 

The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented by both parties have been taken into consideration.

Background:

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Findings and Conclusions:

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.

Dated: 17th of December 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Christina Ryan

Key Words: