ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058735
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | David O'Callaghan | Brendan Halpenny Plant Hire Ltd |
Representatives | Self-represented | None in attendance |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 | CA-00071483-001 | 11/05/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 | CA-00071483-004 | 11/05/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 | CA-00071483-005 | 11/05/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/01/2026 &03/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kara Turner
Procedure:
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
A hearing arranged for 8 January 2026 was attended by David O’Callaghan (the “complainant”). There was no attendance at the hearing by or on behalf of Brendan Halpenny Plant Hire Ltd (the “respondent”). The Commission’s efforts to contact a director of the respondent company on the hearing date were unsuccessful. I adjourned the hearing as I was not satisfied the respondent had been properly notified of the hearing arrangements.
The complainant attended the rescheduled hearing date of 3 March 2026. There was again no attendance by or on behalf of the respondent. I was satisfied the respondent had been properly notified of the hearing arrangements for 3 March 2026 and, after allowing some time for any delay on the part of the respondent, I proceeded with the hearing.
The complainant withdrew a dispute referral under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 at the outset of the hearing and subsequently confirmed the withdrawal in writing.
The hearing was held in public and there were no special circumstances warranting otherwise, or the anonymisation of this decision.
Background:
The complainant was employed as a HGV driver from June 2024 until 28 April 2025. The complaints before me concern unpaid wages and statutory entitlements. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant was not provided with a statement in writing on his terms of employment or a written contract of employment. The complainant was not paid for his last days of work with the respondent in April 2025. The complainant was not provided with notice of termination of employment or payment in lieu of notice, and was owed a day in lieu for working the Easter Monday before he was dismissed. The complainant was not paid for 2 days accrued, untaken annual leave on cessation of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not engage with the Commission in relation to the complaints. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00071483-001 (Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994) It was the complainant’s uncontested evidence that he was not provided with a written statement of terms of employment or contract of employment in respect of his employment with the respondent. The respondent was required by section 3(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (the “1994 Act”) to provide the complainant with a statement in writing concerning certain particulars of the complainant’s terms and conditions of employment within 1 month of the complainant commencing employment with the respondent in June 2024. I find that section 3(1) of the 1994 Act was contravened by the respondent and that this was a subsisting contravention up until the complainant’s employment terminated on 28 April 2025. There was some confusion regarding the complainant’s gross and net weekly remuneration. The complainant’s evidence was of not having received payslips during employment, an understanding that there was no subsistence payment, and of a weekly electronic funds transfer from the respondent in respect of pay that did not tally with the 2024 and 2025 Revenue records for the complainant’s gross pay. The 2025 Revenue record detailed weekly gross pay of €733.84. I find the complaint of a contravention of section 3 of the 1991 Act is well founded and order the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation of €2,000.00, which I consider just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. The foregoing sum does not exceed 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the complainant’s employment and is determined having regard to the Unfair Dismissals (Calculation of Weekly Remuneration) Regulations 1977, and in particular Regulation 13 which precludes account taken of sums paid to an employee for expenses incurred in discharge of their duties. CA-00071483-004 (Payment of Wages Act 1991) The complainant’s uncontested evidence was of working a week in hand and not being paid for work on 21, 22, 23 and 28 April 2025, in respect of which the complainant claimed €640.00 was properly payable. The complainant further claimed non-payment of a day in lieu (€160.00) for working Easter Monday, 21 April 2025, and €800.00 for non-receipt of a week’s notice of termination of employment. The monetary sums claimed by the respondent in respect of the previously mentioned dates were based on the electronic funds transfer amounts received by the complainant from the respondent in respect of pay. Having regard to the Revenue record for gross pay, the complainant’s evidence, and the definition of wages under section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the “1991 Act”) which excludes any payment in respect of expenses incurred, any payment in kind or benefit in kind, and includes holiday pay payable under the contract of employment, I determine the sum of €587.07 as properly payable to the complainant in respect of work on 21, 22, 23 and 28 April 2025 and the sum of €146.77 as properly payable for a holiday/day in lieu for work on Easter Monday, 21 April 2025. The complainant’s evidence was that the respondent terminated his employment on or around 28 April 2025 without notice. The complainant was entitled to one week’s statutory notice under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973. However, based on the information before me, including the fact that the complainant secured alternative employment on 30 April 2025, I find that no sum was payable to the complainant as a payment in lieu of notice within the meaning of ‘wages’ under section 1 and properly payable under the 1991 Act. I find there was a deduction contrary to section 5 of the 1991 Act in circumstances where the respondent did not pay to the complainant wages for work on the previously mentioned dates in April 2025, and for a day in lieu in relation to Easter Monday. Accordingly, I find the complaint in part well founded, and, in accordance with section 6 of the 1991 Act, I direct €733.84 compensation which I consider reasonable in the circumstances. CA-00071483-005 (Organisation of Working Time Act 1997) The complaint is of non-payment of 2 days accrued, untaken annual leave on cessation of employment. The 2 days not compensated are days accrued by the complainant for working on Saturdays, for which there was an agreement between the respondent and the complainant that Saturdays worked would be paid at the normal rate of pay and compensated with an additional day’s leave. The complainant had taken annual leave days in the January to April 2025 period. The entitlement to compensation for loss of accrued, untaken annual leave under section 23 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the “1997 Act”) is in respect of the relevant period, which is determined by reference to section 20(1)(c) of the 1997 Act. The annual leave referred to is that accrued in accordance with section 19 of the 1997 Act, and the relevant leave year period is a year beginning on any 1 April. The complainant’s claim for 2 accrued, untaken leave days arises from an agreement between the respondent and the complainant and does not relate to annual leave accrued in accordance with section 19 of the 1997 Act. I therefore find that I do not have jurisdiction in respect of a claim for compensation for these days on cessation of employment. It follows that I find the complaint of a contravention of section 23 of the 1997 Act is not 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-00071483-001 (Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994) For the reasons set out above, I find the complaint of a breach of section 3 of the 1994 Act is well founded and order the respondent pay to the complainant compensation of €2,000.00, CA-00071483-004 (Payment of Wages Act 1991) For the reasons set out above, my decision is that the complaint is in part well founded and I direct the respondent pay to the complainant compensation of €733.84. CA-00071483-005 (Organisation of Working Time Act 1997) For the reasons set out above, my decision is that the complaint of a contravention of section 23 of the 1997 Act is not well founded. |
Dated: 18th March 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kara Turner
Key Words:
Statement of particulars of terms of employment – Unlawful deduction – Days in lieu – Annual leave |