ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058342
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ionita Lucretia Anisoara | Kells Pizzeria Ltd |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Self-Represented |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00070972-001 | 20/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/11/2025 & 17/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
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.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment on 15th January 2024. The Complainant was a permanent, full time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly payment of €743.08. The Complainant’s employment terminated on 24th March 2023. On 20th April 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent failed to discharge her statutory notice payment. By response, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant resigned her employment was not entitled to such a payment. A hearing in relation to this matter was initially convened for 3rd November 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Unfortunately, both sides experienced technical issues during the hearing and the same was adjourned and duly relisted for 17th April 2026.
At the resumed hearing of the matter, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant. Having reviewed the file, it is apparent that the Complainant was notified of the time, date and venue of the hearing. In these circumstances, the matter proceeded in the absence of the Complainant.
No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings. |
Summary of the Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the resumed hearing of the matter. Having reviewed the file, it is apparent that the Complainant was notified of the time, date and venue of the hearing. In circumstances whereby the Complainant did not apply for an adjournment of the matter, the matter proceeded in her absence. |
Summary of the Respondent’s Case:
While the Respondent stated that they were willing to defend the complaint on its merits, they submitted that in the absence of the Complainant, the matter must fail. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In circumstances whereby the Complainant did not attend the hearing to give evidence in support of her complaint, I find that the same 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.
The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 16-06-2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Non-attendance |