Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Eileen  Whelan

Woodpecker Shavings Ltd

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Niall Gaffney B.L., instructed by Doran W O’Toole & Co., Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00075599-001

21/09/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant undertook to give her evidence under oath, a witness for the respondent undertook to give his evidence under affirmation.

At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment 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 that a

“…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…”.

The complainant confirmed at the outset that she was the spouse of the employer.  The complainant also confirmed that she did not submit a Section 23 request to her employer.

The respondent did not give evidence in the circumstances of this hearing.

Preliminary matters:

The respondent raised the issue of an in-camera hearing as a preliminary matter.  Given that this complaint related strictly to a National Minimum Wage issue, it was considered that a departure from the open justice principle was not warranted in relation to this case.   The hearing proceeded in the presence of members of the public.

As part of the discussion on the request for an in-camera hearing, it transpired that the complainant was the respondent’s spouse.  Accordingly, Section 5 of the Act applies:

5.—(1) This Act does not apply to the remuneration of a person who is—

(a) the spouse … employed by the employer, …

Under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act, the Act does not apply to the complainant. 

Following this discussion, the Adjudicator enquired whether a Section 23 application was made.  The complainant confirmed that it was not made.

Under Section 24 (2)(a)(i) of the Act

(2) The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission shall not entertain a dispute in relation to an employee’s entitlements under this Act and, accordingly, shall not refer the dispute to an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015—

(a) unless the employee—

(i) has obtained under section 23 a statement of his or her average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period, or

(ii) having requested the statement, has not been provided with it within the time limited by that section for the employer to supply the information,

and a period of 6 months (or such longer period, not exceeding 12 months, as the rights commissioner may allow) has not elapsed since that statement was obtained or time elapsed, as the case may be, …

Under Section 24(2)(a)(i) the Director shall not entertain a dispute in relation to an employee’s entitlements in the absence of request for a statement of an employee’s entitlements.

Having regard to the foregoing I find that the Act does not apply to the complainant under Section 5 and in addition, I find that the dispute cannot be referred to an Adjudication Officer under Section 24(2) of the Act.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act does not apply to the complainant and furthermore that this dispute cannot be referred to an Adjudication Officer.

National Minimum Wage Act – spouse of employer – Act does not apply – Section 23 application not made – complaint shall not be referred for adjudication