ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060566

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Gary Somers	Norinora Limited

Representatives

John Connellan of BC Law

No Appearance

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-00073707-001	23/07/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/01/2026

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 Gary Somers as “the Complainant” and Norinora Limited as “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.

The Complainant attended the hearing and was ready to proceed. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent company. Shortly prior to the hearing the WRC received a medical note in respect of one of the director’s of the Respondent company indicating that he was “unfit for court due to ongoing disease and poorly controlled diabetes”. No formal application for a postponement was made and no representative attended.

The Complainant objected to any postponement and requested that the matter proceed.

I considered carefully whether the hearing should be postponed. The Respondent in this matter is a limited company. While the medical certificate relates to one director the Respondent company has more than one director and it was not contended or evidenced that the second director was unavailable or incapacitated.

The medical note provided was brief and did not explain how the medical condition rendered the named director unable to attend or participate in the hearing, whether attendance by remote means was possible, the expected duration of the incapacity or why the Respondent could not be represented in any other manner.

No written submission was provided by the Respondent nor was any representation in attendance at the hearing.

I am satisfied that the Respondent failed to discharge the onus of establishing a sufficient basis for a postponement. I also took into consideration the Complainant’s objection to a postponement and the need to ensure that complaints are heard and determined in a timely manner. In all the circumstances, I decided that it was appropriate to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Respondent.

The Complainant 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.

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 has been taken into consideration.

Background:

The Complainant referred a complaint to the WRC on the 23rd July 2025 under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1991 Act”) wherein he claimed that he was not paid wages due and owing to him.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in May 2024 as a Design and Maintenance Manager. According to his Employment Detail Summary his employment ended on the 5th May 2025. Initially he was not furnished with a contract of employment however a written contract was eventually issued to him which confirmed that his agreed rate of pay was €50 per hour and that his hours were 90 hours flexible per month. The Complainant gave evidence of the non-payment of his pay, public holiday pay and holiday pay.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Notice of the hearing arrangements was sent to the Respondent on the 5th December 2025. The Respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing of this complaint on the 15th January 2026. No evidence or submission was proffered by the Respondent to rebut the Complainant’s case.

Findings and Conclusions:

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted to the WRC and the oral evidence adduced at the hearing summarised above.

The Complainant was a credible witness, providing additional detail as required by the Adjudication Officer and supporting his contentions with documentation where possible. The Complainant gave evidence that he commenced employment with the Respondent in May 2024 as a Design and Maintenance Manager. Initially he was not furnished with a contract of employment however a written contract was eventually issued to him and it reflected the fact that his agreed rate of pay was €50 per hour and his hours were 90 hours flexible per month. The contract was signed by the Respondent’s two directors. The Complainant gave evidence of the hours worked by him and the non-payment of his pay, public holiday pay and holiday pay.

Having considered the uncontested evidence of the Complainant I find that the sums in question constitute “wages” within the meaning of the 1991 Act. I am satisfied that the Complainant was not paid the wages that were properly payable to him and that he has established his claim to the total gross wages of €23,185.68 under the 1991 Act. I find that the Respondent deducted this amount unlawfully and that the Complainant is entitled to payment of compensation of €23,185.68 less any lawful deductions. I consider this to be reasonable in the circumstances.

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.

Having regard to the written and oral evidence in relation to this complaint my decision is that the complaint is well-founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €23,185.68 less any lawful deductions.

Dated: 22nd of January 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan

Key Words: