Case highlights the importance of respondent employer engaging in the WRC process to avoid financial and reputational consequences.

The Complainant lodged 14 complaints against the Respondent. At the initial adjudication hearing proceedings were adjourned to allow for written submissions. At the reconvened hearing in February 2025, the Complainant attended as scheduled, while the Respondent was absent. The hearing commenced in his absence but was interrupted upon his late arrival. The Respondent claimed he had not been notified of the hearing, asserting that correspondence had been sent to a business address he no longer controlled, despite providing an email contact. The Adjudicator noted his failure to submit his written responses by the agreed deadline. Given the Respondent’s lack of formal notice, the Adjudicator restarted proceedings, summarising the Complainant’s testimony and offering the Respondent the opportunity to cross-examine. However, before the hearing concluded, the Respondent stated he would not comply with any award and left, despite being advised of the implications.

The Complainant, employed as a bartender from June 2022 to June 2024, alleged multiple breaches of employment law, including underpayment, failure to provide rest breaks, unpaid wages and holiday pay, as well as unfair dismissal.

Under oath, the Respondent conceded several complaints, including those related to the minimum wage, Sunday premium pay, unpaid wages, annual leave, and public holiday payments. However, he disputed complaints regarding minimum notice, rest breaks, and unfair dismissal. He argued that the bar’s closure in June 2024 resulted from a health inspection, which the Complainant and his mother, the bar manager, failed to disclose. He claimed they mismanaged the business, breached licensing laws, and tarnished his reputation. Before the hearing concluded, he left, refusing to participate further.

The Adjudicator found that the Respondent failed to uphold his obligations, particularly in ensuring proper employment conditions and fair procedures. The unfair dismissal claim was upheld, with the Complainant awarded eight weeks’ loss of earnings. The total award granted amounted to €10,396

The case demonstrates employers should engage with the WRC process. This is to ensure fair treatment of employees and to avoid financial / reputational consequences. The Respondent’s failure to engage properly with the WRC led to a substantial award of €10,396, highlighting the risks of neglecting employment law responsibilities.

One key issue was the lack of formal procedures. The Respondent treated employees informally, failing to provide written contracts, rest breaks, and minimum notice. They also failed to follow fair dismissal procedures. The WRC ruled against the Respondent because they did not present evidence to justify their decisions. Employers must understand that employment laws exist to protect both parties, and a hands-off management approach does not absolve them of their legal duties.

To avoid similar outcomes, employers should:

• Maintain clear records of employee contracts, hours worked and pay.
• Follow fair procedures for dismissals, ensuring proper notice and justifiable reasons.
• Respond to WRC claims, submit evidence, and attend hearings to present their case.
• Seek legal or HR advice when handling disputes.

Engaging with the WRC proactively can prevent costly awards and legal repercussions while fostering a fair and legally compliant workplace.

The full case can be found here: 
 https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/february/adj-00054333.html