ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048044

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Sean Kelly	Metron Stores Limited t/a Iceland (in liquidation)

Representatives

N/A

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-00059192-001	03/10/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/03/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman

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 matter was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designates the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

On 5 March 2025, the Independent Workers’ Union (the “Complainant’s Representative”) emailed the WRC to indicate that it was coming off record for Mr. Sean Kelly (the “Complainant”).

On 21 March 2025, the Complainant did not attend the Hearing. Metron Stores Limited t/a Iceland (in liquidation) (the “Respondent”) also did not attend.

Case Management Conference:

A Case Management Conference concerning a number of complaints, including this complaint, was held on 19 December 2023. The Independent Workers’ Union attended on behalf of the Complainant and JW Accountants attended on behalf of the Respondent. The Parties agreed the Respondent’s correct name, as indicated above.

Background:

On 3 October 2023, the Complainant filed a Complaint Form with the WRC in which he alleged that he had not been paid the full amount that was due to him in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 as amended.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant.

In a letter from the WRC dated 30 January 2025, the Complainant’s Representative was informed of the details of the Hearing to take place on 21 March 2025. The same letter set out the procedure regarding postponement requests. On 5 March 2025, the Complainant’s Representative came off record for the Complainant.

On 19 March 2025, the Complainant was emailed the log-in details for the remote Hearing. The Complainant did not respond. That afternoon, the WRC called the Complainant but there was no reply.

On 20 March 2025, the WRC called the Complainant again but there was no reply.

On 21 March 2025, the Complainant did not attend the Hearing. The WRC emailed the Complainant that morning to ask him to confirm if he was attending the Hearing, but there was no reply. When the Complainant did not attend the Hearing, a grace period was allowed to enable the Complainant to attend or contact the WRC. He did not do so.

On 22 May 2025, the WRC sent a letter to the Complainant by post and email. The letter outlined that the Complainant had not attended the Hearing. The letter further outlined that unless the WRC heard from the Complainant within seven days, a decision would be issued in this matter and the file would be closed. The Complainant did not contact the WRC.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

On 19 December 2023, during the Case Management Conference, the Respondent’s correct name was confirmed and it is reflected in this Decision.

In a letter from the WRC dated 30 January 2025, the Respondent was informed of the details of the Hearing to take place on 21 March 2025. The same letter also set out the procedure regarding postponement requests.

On 11 March 2025, JW Accountants emailed the WRC. They confirmed that Mr. Joseph Walsh was appointed Liquidator of the Company (the “Liquidator”) on 7 September 2023, by Order of Mr. Justice Quinn of the High Court. They further confirmed that as this complaint relates to matters which predate the Liquidator’s appointment, he is not familiar with the background to the complaint and therefore is not in a position to attend or assist in the Hearing.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the Hearing and decided not to attend

Findings and Conclusions:

I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the Hearing but did not attend. I am also satisfied that the WRC has made sufficient effort to contact the Complainant, who has not engaged.

The Complainant failed to attend the Hearing as scheduled and failed to present any evidence in support of his complaint.

In the circumstances, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

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.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Dated: 05/06/25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman

Key Words:

Payment of Wages Act 1991, Non-Attendance.