ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056718
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Brian Kelly | Around Ireland Day Tours Limited trading as Wild Rover Tours |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Terry Gorry of Terry Gorry & Co Solicitors | Katie Nugent of The HR Suite |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022 | CA-00068938-001 | 30/01/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 | CA-00068938-002 | 30/01/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/06/2025
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.
This matter was heard by way of a remote hearing on the 20th June 2025 pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The parties are named in the heading of the Decision. For ease of reference, for the remainder of the document I will refer to Brian Kelly as “the Complainant” and Around Ireland Day Tours Limited trading as Wild Rover Tours as “the Respondent”. The Respondent’s Director and Transport Manager attended the hearing to give evidence on behalf of the Respondent.
At the adjudication hearing 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. There was no application to have the matter heard in private or to have the decision anonymised.
I advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation. All evidence was given under Affirmation.
I allowed the right to test the oral evidence presented by way of cross-examination.
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.
The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation from both parties prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented by both parties have been taken into consideration.
Background:
The Complainant referred the within complaints to the WRC on the 30th January 2025. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that he suffered ill health and was obliged to take certified sick leave. He was not paid his correct sick leave entitlement. The Complainant’s employment was terminated by email on the 2nd January 2025 and he did not receive his notice pay. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent accepted that the Complainant was not paid the correct sick leave pay. The Complainant was paid two days in 2024 and the Respondent acknowledged that an additional three days of certified sick leave should have been paid which equated to approximately €330. The Respondent was also willing to pay five days of statutory sick leave for absence due to illness in 2025 which equated to approximately €550. The Respondent accepted that the Complainant was entitled to the payment of an additional two weeks’ notice pay which equated to approximately to €1,320. The Respondent acknowledged that the Complainant was owed two days of annual leave which equated to approximately €294 and that he was owed for one public holiday which amounted to approximately €147. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00068938-001: Sick Leave Act 2022 The Respondent did not dispute the Complainant’s complaint under the Sick Leave Act 2022. I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that the Complainant did not receive his entitlement. Accordingly, I find this complaint to be well founded. CA-00068938-002: Payment of Wages Act 1991 The Respondent did not dispute the Complainant’s complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Respondent confirmed that the Complainant was owed two weeks’ notice pay, holiday pay and public holiday pay. I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that there was an unlawful deduction from the Complainant’s wages. Accordingly, I find this complaint to be well founded. |
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-00068938-001: Sick Leave Act 2022 For the reasons set out above I decide that this complaint is well-founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €880. CA-00068938-002: Payment of Wages Act 1991 For the reasons set out above I decide that this complaint is well-founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €1,761 gross less any lawful deductions. |
Dated: 07-01-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan
Key Words:
|