TUD167

He decided that the Respondent did not infringe the Terms of Employment (Information ) Act or the EC (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003. He further decided that the Respondent infringed in part the Complainant’s rights under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and awarded him compensation in the sum of €150. The Complainant appealed against those decisions to this Court. The appeals were filed with the Court on 24 March 2016. The case came on for hearing before the Court on 26 May 2016.

Background

The Respondent operates a motorway service station in North Dublin. Its predecessor employed the Complainant commencing in and around 2009/2010 as a Junior Trainee Manager. On 1 February 2015 the business was transferred to the Respondent Company. The complainant submitted complaints under the three Acts in 2015. Each set of the complaints is dealt with below.

Organisation of Working Time Act

The Complainant submits that the Respondent infringed sections 11, 12, 14. 17, 19 and 21 of the Act. The Respondent denies the claims.

Section 11

Section 11 of the Act in relevant part states

• 11.—An employee shall be entitled to a rest period of not less than 11 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours during which he or she works for his or her employer.

The Respondent acknowledges that he did not receive an 11 hour break on those dates. However it submits that he was granted compensatory rest on each of those occasions and submits that no infringement of the Act occurred.

Findings of the Court

Section 6 of the Act states

• 6.—(1) Any regulations, collective agreement, registered employment agreement or employment regulation order referred to insection 4that exempt any activity from the application ofsection 11,12or13or provide that any of these sections shall not apply in relation to an employee shall include a provision requiring the employer concerned to ensure that the employee concerned has available to himself or herself such rest period or break as the provision specifies to be equivalent to the rest period or break, as the case may be, provided for bysection 11,12or13.
  (2) Where by reason of the operation of subsection (1) or (2) ofsection 4, orsection 5, an employee is not entitled to the rest period or break referred to insection 11,12, or13the employer concerned shall—
  (a) ensure that the employee has available to himself or herself a rest period or break, as the case may be, that, in all the circumstances, can reasonably be regarded as equivalent to the first-mentioned rest period or break, or
  (b) if for reasons that can be objectively justified, it is not possible for the employer to ensure that the employee has available to himself or herself such an equivalent rest period or break, otherwise make such arrangements as respects the employee’s conditions of employment as will compensate the employee in consequence of the operation of subsection (1) or (2) ofsection 4, orsection 5.
  (3) The reference in subsection (2) (b) to the making of arrangements as respects an employee’s conditions of employment does not include a reference to—
  (a) the granting of monetary compensation to the employee, or
  (b) the provision of any other material benefit to the employee, other than the provision of such a benefit as will improve the physical conditions under which the employee works or the amenities or services available to the employee while he or she is at work.

The Court finds that the Complainant’s evidence was consistent with the rosters that were presented to it.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant sought accommodation around the scheduling of his shifts to enable him to meet family commitments. No evidence of such requests was presented to the Court. Even if it was however they would not amount to a justification for infringing the Act. Such accommodations are not exempt from compliance with the law.

The Court finds that the Respondent’s submission that the Complainant received compensatory rest is not relevant. The Respondent did not make out any case that it is engaged in an exempted industry and accordingly compensatory rest arrangements available in those sectors do not apply in this case.

Based on the submissions of the parties and the evidence before it the Court finds that the Complaint is well founded.

The Court orders the respondent to pay the complainant compensation in the sum of €150.00.

Section 12

Section 12 of the Act states

• 12.—(1) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes.
  (2) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 6 hours without allowing him or her a break of at least 30 minutes; such a break may include the break referred to in subsection (1).
  (3) The Minister may by regulations provide, as respects a specified class or classes of employee, that the minimum duration of the break to be allowed to such an employee under subsection (2) shall be more than 30 minutes (but not more than 1 hour).
  (4) A break allowed to an employee at the end of the working day shall not be regarded as satisfying the requirement contained in subsection (1) or (2

"shop" includes—

"shop employee" means an employee who does shop work;
"shop work" means work in or about a shop and

(b) whose hours of work as such an employee include the hours from 11.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m.,

the minimum duration of the break to be allowed by the employer under secton 12(2) of the Act to him or her shall be one hour and that break shall, unless its commencement between those hours would result in section 12(4) of the Act not being complied with, commence between the hours aforesaid.

The Complainant submits that he was not scheduled breaks as set out in sections 12(1) and (2) above. He further submits that as he was employed as a “shop worker” within the meaning of the Act he was entitled to a break of 1 hour when working between 11 30am and 2.30 pm. He refers to S.I. No 57/1998 in this regard. He submits that he did not receive such breaks.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was employed as a manager and is not a “shop worker” within the meaning of the Act. It further states that he was responsible for scheduling others for their breaks and for scheduling his own during the working day. He therefore was in a position to take his breaks at his discretion.

The Respondent operates a large shop from which it controls fuel pumps on the forecourt. Customers normally pay for petrol purchases in the shop. The shop itself stocks a large range of products that are on open sale to all customers whether they purchase fuel or not. The Complainant was responsible for the supervision of staff in the shop and spent most of his working time serving customers.

Findings of the Court

The Court finds that the Respondent operates a “shop” and that the Complainant is a “shop worker” within the meaning of the Act.

The Court finds that the Respondent did not roster the Complainant for a 1 hour break between 11.30 and 2.30 when working at those times. The records produced by the Respondent to the Court demonstrate that the Complainant was rostered to work at those times on occasions during the statutory reference period. Accordingly the Court finds that the Complainant when working at those times was, in accordance with S.I. 57/1998, entitled to a break of one hour which he did not receive .

The Court notes the terms of section 12(1) of the Act. It states 12.—(1) An employershall not requirean employee to work for a period of more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes. That same term is used in section 12(2) of the Act also.

In this case the Complainant was responsible for rostering breaks during his shift. As such he was in a position to and responsible for the allocation of breaks including his own. No evidence was presented to the Court that would suggest that he was under pressure not to take breaks or to work without a break. Instead the evidence was that he could not take his statutory breaks due to pressure of work. The Court does not accept that evidence. The Court accepts the Respondent's evidence that the Complainant was free to allocate breaks and left to his own devices to do so. At no time did he raise a complaint that he was not in a position to take breaks and accordingly the Respondent was unaware of any difficulty. Indeed the evidence of the Respondent was that the Complainant regularly took breaks from work and also took other smoke breaks as and when required.

The Court, on the balance of probabilities, finds that the Complainant was responsible for scheduling breaks and was in a position to schedule his own breaks as and when appropriate. Instead it was clear that he was largely left to his own devices to organise beaks during the shifts he supervised.

Therefore the Court finds that the Respondent did not “require” the Complainant to work in a manner that infringed section 12(1) or 12(2) of the Act as he was at all times free to allocate break times to himself and chose not to do so.

However the Court finds that the Respondent did not consider the Complainant a shop worker and made no provision for him to take a one hour break in accordance with S.I. 57/1998. Accordingly the Court finds that the Respondent infringed the regulations on those days on which the Complainant was scheduled to work between the hours of 11.30am and 2.30pm.

The Respondent relies on the decision of the High Court in Stasalitis v Noonan Services Group Ltd [2014]ELR 173. In that case a security officer worked alone and took his breaks at slack times. The High Court, upholding a decision of this Court, held that he received appropriate compensatory rest and that the Act was therefore complied with.

The Court finds this decision does not assist it. The Complainant in that case was employed in an industry that was exempt, provided certain conditions were met, from the strict application of section 12 of the Act. Therefore the issue of compensatory rest was a relevant factor in deciding that case. The Complainant in this case was not employed in an industry that comes within the scope of that exemption. Accordingly the decision of the High Court has no application to this case.

Determination

The Court determines that the Complainant is a shop worker and comes within the scope of S.I. 57/1998. The Court finds that the Respondent infringed the Act by failing to provide the Complainant with an hours break between 11.30 and 2.30 when he was working during those hours.

The Court finds no breach of sections 12(1) or (2) otherwise occurred.

The Court orders the respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of €250.00.

Section 14

Section 14 of the Act states

• S 14.—(1) An employee who is required to work on a Sunday (and the fact of his or her having to work on that day has not otherwise been taken account of in the determination of his or her pay) shall be compensated by his or her employer for being required so to work by the following means, namely—
  (a) by the payment to the employee of an allowance of such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or
  (b) by otherwise increasing the employee’s rate of pay by such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or
  (c) by granting the employee such paid time off from work as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or
  (d) by a combination of two or more of the means referred to in the preceding paragraphs.
  (2) Subsection (3) applies to an employee where the value or the minimum value of the compensation to be provided to him or her in respect of his or her being required to work on a Sunday is not specified by a collective agreement.
  (3) For the purposes of proceedings underPart IVbefore a rights commissioner or the Labour Court in relation to a complaint that this section has not been complied with in relation to an employee to whom this subsection applies (“the first-mentioned employee”), the value or the minimum value of the compensation that a collective agreement for the time being specifies shall be provided to a comparable employee in respect of his or her being required to work on a Sunday shall be regarded as the value of compensation to be provided under this section to the first-mentioned employee that is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances:
  Provided that if each of 2 or more collective agreements for the time being specifies the value or the minimum value of the compensation to be provided to a comparable employee to whom the agreement relates in respect of his or her being required to work on a Sunday and the said values or minimum values are not the same whichever of the said values or minimum values is the less shall be regarded, for the purposes aforesaid, as the value of compensation to be provided under this section to the first-mentioned employee that is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
  (4) Unless the fact of such a value being so specified has come to the notice of the rights commissioner or the Labour Court, as the case may be, it shall be for the person who alleges in proceedings referred to in subsection (3) that a value of compensation of the kind referred to in that subsection is specified by a collective agreement mentioned in that subsection to show that, in fact, such a value is so specified.
  (5) In subsection (3)“comparable employee” means an employee who is employed to do, under similar circumstances, identical or similar work in the industry or sector of employment concerned to that which the first-mentioned employee in subsection (3) is employed to do.
  (6) References in this section to a value or minimum value of compensation that is specified by a collective agreement shall be construed as including references to a value or minimum value of compensation that may be determined in accordance with a formula or procedures specified by the agreement (being a formula or procedures which, in the case of proceedings referred to in subsection (3) before a rights commissioner or the Labour Court, can be readily applied or followed by the rights commissioner or the Labour Court for the purpose of the proceedings).

The Respondent submits that the Complainant's contract of employment requires him to work on Sunday. It further submits that his annual salary amounted to €22,000 which it submits contains an element of compensation for the liability to work on Sunday.

Findings of the Court

The Court finds that the Complainant’s contract of employment clearly sets out a requirement to work on Sunday. His salary is set at €22,000 per annum. However there is no evidence that the salary contains any compensation for the requirement to work on Sunday. Indeed there was no evidence before the Court that the Complainant’s salary required him to work any number of Sunday’s each year. It is possible that he could be scheduled to work on no Sunday of the year for the salary he received.

It is clear from section 14 above that an employee is entitled to compensation for the requirement to work on Sunday where "the fact of his or her having to work on that day has not otherwise been taken account of in the determination of his or her pay"Where it has not been so taken into account the section goes on to list a number of compensatory options one of which the worker must be afforded. In this case the Respondent submits that it is self evident that the requirement to work on Sunday has been otherwise taken into consideration in the determination of the Complainant's pay. It refers in this regard to the terms of the Contract of Employment and to the Complainant's rate of pay.

The Court finds that the combination of the Contract of Employment and the Complainant's rate of pay is not sufficient in themselves to meet the burden of proving that the requirement to work on Sunday has been taken into consideration in the determination of his rate of pay. No evidence of a relationship between the requirement to work on Sunday and the rate of pay was presented to the Court. It was simply submitted that there was a self evident relationship between them.

The Court does not accept that there is a relationship between them or that it is self evident. Accordingly the Court finds that the Respondent infringed Section 14 of the Act.

Determination

The Complaint is well founded. The Court orders the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of €850.00. The Court further orders the Respondent to apply a premium of time plus one third when working on Sunday. The Court so determines.

Section 17

Section 17 of the Act states

• 17.—(1) If neither the contract of employment of the employee concerned nor any employment regulation order, registered employment agreement or collective agreement that has effect in relation to the employee specifies the normal or regular starting and finishing times of work of an employee, the employee’s employer shall notify the employee, subject to subsection (3), at least 24 hours before the first day or, as the case may be, the day, in each week that he or she proposes to require the employee to work, of the times at which the employee will normally be required to start and finish work on each day, or, as the case may be, the day or days concerned, of that week.
  (2) If the hours for which an employee is required to work for his or her employer in a week include such hours as the employer may from time to time decide (in this subsection referred to as “additional hours”), the employer shall notify the employee, subject to subsection (3), at least 24 hours before the first day or, as the case may be, the day, in that week on which he or she proposes to require the employee to work all or, as the case may be, any of the additional hours, of the times at which the employee will be required to start and finish working the additional hours on each day, or, as the case may be, the day or days concerned, of that week.
  (3) If during the period of 24 hours before the first-mentioned or, as the case may be, the second-mentioned day in subsection (1) or (2), the employee has not been required to do work for the employer, the time at which the employee shall be notified of the matters referred to in subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be, shall be not later than before the last period of 24 hours, preceding the said first or second-mentioned day, in which he or she has been required to do work for the employer.
  (4) A notification to an employee, in accordance with this section, of the matters referred to in subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be, shall not prejudice the right of the employer concerned, subject to the provisions of this Act, to require the employee to start or finish work or, as the case may be, to work the additional hours referred to in subsection (2) at times other than those specified in the notification if circumstances, which could not reasonably have been foreseen, arise that justify the employer in requiring the employee to start or finish work or, as the case may be, to work the said additional hours at those times.
  (5) It shall be a sufficient notification to an employee of the matters referred to in subsection (1) or (2) for the employer concerned to post a notice of the matters in a conspicuous position in the place of the employee’s employment.

The Respondent submits that it posted rosters on the notice board in compliance with section 17(5) of the Act. It submits therefore that it did not infringe section 17(1) or (2) of the Act.

Findings of the Court

The Court has heard the evidence of both sides in this matter. The Court finds that the Complainant had knowledge of the notice he received of his start and finish times in the relevant period. It further notes that the Complainant did not identify a single occasion on which he was not given 24 hours’ notice of his start or finish time.

Accordingly the Court finds that no case has been made out by the Complainant.

The Complainant seeks to rely on the obligation section 25 of the Act places on the Respondent to keep records of additional hours worked under section 17 of the Act.

The Court acknowledges that obligation. However it can only apply it where there is some evidence adduced by the Complainant that he was not given the requisite notice in the relevant statutory period. In this case no such evidence was given to the Court. Accordingly no prima facie case was made out. Instead the Court is being asked to find that, in the absence of records to the contrary, a breach of the act is presumed to have occurred. That is not a proposition that the Court can support.

The Court requires some evidence that a breach of the Act occurred or probably occurred. The information necessary to make out such a complaint is within the knowledge of the Complainant. It requires no more than an identification of the date on which he claims the infringement occurred. Once that has been done the onus shifts to the Respondent to produce records or otherwise rebut the evidence of the Complainant. It is not enough to ask the Court to assume an infringement occurred because no records have been produced. Establishing prima facie evidence of the alleged infringement is anterior to the enquiry into the records and must be dealt with as such by this Court.

Determination

The Complaint is not well founded.

Section 19 and 21

The Complainant submits that he was paid a bonus payment that was not included for the purpose of calculating his public or annual holiday pay.

The Respondent submits that the complainant’s holiday pay was properly calculated. It further submits that the Complainant opted for a paid day off in lieu of the one Public Holiday that he worked in the relevant statutory period. It submits that the “bonus payment” was paid out at set times each year and was not included for any other purposes as it was not in the nature of pay but rather an ex-gratia payment related to Company performance.

S.I. 475/1997 states governs the calculation of holiday pay. It states in relevant part

Weekly Pay

3.(2) If the concerned employee's pay is calculated wholly by reference to a time rate or a fixed rate or salary or any other rate that does not vary in relation to the work done by him or her, the normal weekly rate of his or her pay, for the purposes of the relevant sections, shall be the sum (including any regular bonus or allowance the amount of which does not vary in relation to the work done by the employee but excluding any pay for overtime) that is paid in respect of the normal weekly working hours last worked by the employee before the annual leave (or the portion thereof concerned) commences or, as the case may be, the cesser of employment occurs.

Daily Pay

5. 1 ( a ) in case the employee's pay is calculated wholly by reference to any of the matters referred to in Regulation 3(2) of these Regulations, the relevant rate in respect of that public holiday shall be the sum that is equal to the sum (including any regular bonus or allowance the amount of which does not vary in relation to the work done by the employee but excluding any pay for overtime) paid to the employee in respect of the normal Daily hours last worked by him or her before that public holiday,

In this case the Complainant was paid an annual salary that did not vary in relation to the amount of work done. It did vary in relation to the number of hours worked but that is not relevant for the purposes of this complaint.

The bonus claimed by the Complainant was not a “regular bonus” within the meaning of the Act. It was an exceptional payment determined from time to time to which he had no contractual entitlement. It was paid at the discretion of the Respondent in the amount it determined. Accordingly it cannot be considered a “regular bonus” envisaged in section 3.(2) or 5.(1) above.

Determination

The Complaint is not well founded.

The EC (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003.

Section 8(6) of the Regulations

The Complainant states that, contrary to section 8(5) of the 2003 Regulations, he was not provided with written notice of the transfer of undertakings that took place on 1 February 2015.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was notified in writing by way of letter that accompanied his pay slip.

In evidence to the Court the Complainant could not recall fully whether he received that notice. However the Respondent was clear that it was provided to all staff.

Findings

Regulation 8(6) states

• (6) Where, notwithstanding paragraph (5), there are still no representatives of the employees in an undertaking or business concerned (through no fault of the employees), each of the employees concerned must be informed in writing, where reasonably practicable, not later than 30 days before the transfer and, in any event, in good time before the transfer, of the following:

  (a) the date or proposed date of the transfer;

  (b) the reasons for the transfer;

  (c) the legal implications of the transfer for the employee and a summary of any relevant economic and social implications for that employee;

  and

  (d) any measures envisaged in relation to the employees.

Conclusion

The Complaint is well founded in that the Respondent did not fully comply with Regulation 8(6) in that it did not provide the Complainant with 30 days written notice or otherwise so advise him “in good time” of the transfer.

Remedy

Regulation 10 (8) states

• (5) A decision of a rights commissioner under paragraph (4) shall do one or more of the following:

  (a) declare that the complaint is or, as the case may be, is not well founded;

  (b) require the employer to comply with these Regulations and, for that purpose, to take a specified course of action; or

  (c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as in the opinion of the rights commissioner, is just and equitable in the circumstances, but -

  (i) in the case of a contravention of Regulation 8, not exceeding 4 weeks remuneration and,

  (ii) in the case of a contravention of any other Regulation, not exceeding 2 years remuneration,

  in respect of the employee's employment calculated in accordance with Regulations made undersection 17of theUnfair Dismissals Act 1977,

  and a reference in this paragraph to an employer shall be construed, in a case where ownership of the relevant undertaking or business, or the part concerned of that undertaking or business, of the employer changes after the contravention to which the complaint relates occurred, as a reference to the person who, by virtue of the change, becomes entitled to such ownership.

Determination

The Complaint is well founded. The Court orders the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of one weeks' wages.

The Court so determines

The Terms of Employment Information Act

The Complainant submits that the Respondent infringed section 3 of the Act in relation to his employment. He submits that he did not receive a copy of his contract within two months of the commencement of his employment. He submits that he in fact did not receive it until three years after he commenced employment.

He further submits that his annual leave year runs from January to December whereas the statutory leave year runs from April to March. He submits that he was entitled to proper notification of his leave year.

He submits that he was not, within six months of the commencement of his employment and contrary to assurances he received, given information regarding the PRSA to which he had access.

The respondent acknowledges that it did not supply the Complainant with a copy of the staff handbook within two months of the commencement of his employment. It submits that it did so within three months of that date. It submits that the handbook meets all of the statutory requirements under the Act. It further submits that the Complainant suffered no detriment as a result of this delay.

Findings of the Court

The law

• 3.—(1) An employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment, that is to say—
  (a) the full names of the employer and the employee,
  (b) the address of the employer in the State or, where appropriate, the address of the principal place of the relevant business of the employer in the State or the registered office (within the meaning of theCompanies Act, 1963),
  (c) the place of work or, where there is no fixed or main place of work, a statement specifying that the employee is required or permitted to work at various places,
  (d) the title of the job or nature of the work for which the employee is employed,
  (e) the date of commencement of the employee’s contract of employment,
  (f) in the case of a temporary contract of employment, the expected duration thereof or, if the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the date on which the contract expires,
  F5[(fa) a reference to any registered employment agreement or employment regulation order which applies to the employee and confirmation of where the employee may obtain a copy of such agreement or order, ]
  F6[(g) the rate or method of calculation of the employee’s remuneration and the pay reference period for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000,
  (ga) that the employee may, undersection 23of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000, request from the employer a written statement of the employee’s average hourly rate of pay for any pay reference period as provided in that section,]
  (h) the length of the intervals between the times at which remuneration is paid, whether a week, a month or any other interval,

  (i) any terms or conditions relating to hours of work (including overtime),

  (j) any terms or conditions relating to paid leave (other than paid sick leave),

  (k) any terms or conditions relating to—

  (i) incapacity for work due to sickness or injury and paid sick leave, and

  (ii) pensions and pension schemes,

  (l) the period of notice which the employee is required to give and entitled to receive (whether by or under statute or under the terms of the employee’s contract of employment) to determine the employee’s contract of employment or, where this cannot be indicated when the information is given, the method for determining such periods of notice,

  (m) a reference to any collective agreements which directly affect the terms and conditions of the employee’s employment including, where the employer is not a party to such agreements, particulars of the bodies or institutions by whom they were made.

  (2) A statement shall be given to an employee under subsection (1) notwithstanding that the employee’s employment ends before the end of the period within which the statement is required to be given.

  (3) The particulars specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (l) of the said subsection (1), may be given to the employee in the form of a reference to provisions of statutes or instruments made under statute or of any other laws or of any administrative provisions or collective agreements, governing those particulars which the employee has reasonable opportunities of reading during the course of the employee’s employment or which are reasonably accessible to the employee in some other way.

  (4) A statement furnished by an employer under subsection (1) shall be signed and dated by or on behalf of the employer.

  (5) A copy of the said statement shall be retained by the employer during the period of the employee's employment and for a period of 1 year thereafter.

  (6) (a) The Minister may by order require employers to give or cause to be given to employees within a specified time a statement in writing containing such particulars of the terms of their employment (other than those referred to in subsection (1)) as may be specified in the order and employers shall comply with the provisions of such an order.

  (b) The Minister may by order amend or revoke an order under this subsection, including an order under this paragraph.

  (7) This section (other than subsection (6)) shall not apply or have effect as respects contracts of employment entered into before the commencement of this Act.

• (d) order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations undersection 17of theUnfair Dismissals Act 1977.

  In this case the Respondent acknowledges that it did not meet its obligations to the Complainant within the first two months of his employment. The Complainant submits that it failed to do so within the first two years of his employment.

  The Court finds that there is an acknowledged breach of the Act.

  The Court must consider that breach having regard to “all of the circumstances” of the case.

  The circumstances outlined to the Court are that the Respondent provided the Complainant with a full statement of his terms and conditions of employment and that he suffered no adverse consequence as a result of the delay. The Complainant submits that he is entitled to know his terms and conditions of employment and that he was denied access to the PRSA as a result and furthermore was not aware of his annual leave year which affected his capacity to plan his annual leave.

  Determination

  Taking those circumstances into account the Court determines that the Respondent infringed the Act. The Court orders the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of one weeks' wages.