ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013773

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/11/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the Complainants to me by the Director General, I inquired into the Complainants and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the Complainants.

Background:

The Complainant commenced employment as a Sous Chef on 12th December 2016. He submitted that the Respondent was in breach of a number of his rights including a failure to provide a written statement of his terms of employment under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994; breaches under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 in relation to payment for his annual leave entitlements and non-receipt of public holiday entitlements; a complaint that he was paid less than the amount due to him contrary to the Payment of Wages Act 1999; and a Complainant that he was penalised for refusing to cooperate with a breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

The Complainant commenced work on a salary of €30,000 per annum in a start-up restaurant business and where he would have worked extra hours during the start-up, however when seeking to address these issues the Respondent failed to deal with them reasonably.

The Complainant resigned form his position on 1st October 2017 and lodged his complaint to the WRC on 23rd March 2018.

The Respondent denied the allegations and maintained the Complainant has received his rights under the Organisation of Working Time Act, was not penalised, and that the Complainant would have been properly paid for his work.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

CA-00018118-001 Complainant under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 The Complainant maintained he did not receive his terms of employment in writing despite a number of requests for same. He maintained the absence of written terms of conditions led to various breaches of rights under the Organisation of Working Time Act and the Payment of Wages Act. The Complainant further submitted that the absence of his terms and conditions in writing provided him with no avenue to have his matters resolved once the Respondent failed to deal with the issues in a reasonable manner.

CA-00018118-003 Complainant under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Annual Leave Entitlements                                                                                           

The Complainant maintained that he had worked intensive hours from his appointment, and in May 2017 he had arranged annual leave in Portugal for one week. However, prior to departing on leave he had an injury where he burnt his hand, and this necessitated him being unfit for work and having to take some sick leave. He maintained that he took his week’s annual leave in Portugal and upon his return he would have advised the Respondent that he was not fit to work where he was asked to bring in his medical certificates and that he would be sorted. He was subsequently paid for the two weeks that he could not attend work due to his injury.

The Complainant maintained that when he returned to work from the injury he continued working until September 2017 when he was again unwell. He did not attend work due to an illness from circa 8th to 19th September 2017. He advised that he was signed off sick over that period.

The Complainant also acknowledged that in June 2017 as a consequence of the difficulties he was having from the Respondent to get paid properly for the hours worked he did not attend work for a week. He submitted that he was in dispute with the Respondent until the matter was resolved. He advised that after not attending work for a week he returned to work and whilst he had been paid for that week when he was absent he understood he had an agreement with the Respondent that his absence was not to be treated as part of his annual leave.

The Complainant maintained that during September 2017 when he was seeking to again resolve his working hours and to be paid for same that he was advised by the Respondent that he had no annual leave remaining as he had taken leave in May and June 2017. The Complainant was unfit for work from 8th to 19th September 2017 and maintained that he was to be paid for this period of sick absence and it was not annual leave.

The Complainant therefore argued that he was due 16½ days annual leave but he only received one week’s paid annual leave. He maintained that the other leave was paid sick leave and should not have been treated as annual leave. The Complainant therefore maintained this was a breach of his rights under the Organisation of Working Time Act and he was seeking compensation for the manner in which the Respondent handled his sick leave and tried to treat it as annual leave.

CA-00018118-004 Complainant under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Public Holiday Entitlements

The Complainant maintained the Respondent did not pay him for his public holiday entitlements contrary to the Organisation of Working Time Act. The Complainant acknowledged that he only worked one public holiday, that being the 17th March 2017 however he did not get an extra day’s pay for that public holiday; and also he did not get a paid days leave for the remaining public holidays he was entitled to. He submitted that he was entitled to 8 public holidays during 2017 which had not been recognised by the Respondent.

CA-00018118-005 Complainant under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant argued that he never received his pay slips in the early part of his employment and throughout his employment he would have only received a small number of payslips.

It was submitted by the Complainant that the payslips that were provided at the hearing were by and large never provided to him and they did not reflect his true working hours and therefore where not credible. The Complainant further suggested that some payslips where showing a zero rate of pay and therefore were not credible. The Complainant insisted that he did not receive any extra pay on the weeks that the public holidays fell.

The Complainant maintains that he was not paid the correct amount of pay for the hours he worked. He maintained that on average he worked a 60-hour week but he was only paid for a 40 hour week. He advised that he did not receive any over-time pay for the extra hours that he had worked. The Complainant maintained that he regularly sought for this matter to be resolved when he engaged with the Respondent both at meetings and through Facebook messages seeking the matter to be resolved.

The Complainant maintained that despite his representations he did not receive any extra pay for the extra hours he was working. He submitted there was ongoing email messages between him and the Respondent where the Complainant maintained he was trying to be reasonable in seeking this matter to be resolved. As it was not resolved it led to a period of time over one week when the Complainant would not attend work until the issue was addressed. Upon his return to work he maintained that his working hours were regularised and where he would not have worked more than his 40-hour week from that point. However, he maintained that the Respondent failed to pay him for the extra hours he had completed from December 2016 to June 2017, and he was constantly seeking that until his departure in October 2017.

CA-00018118-006 Complainant under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Penalisation

This Complainant related to annual leave entitlements and has been addressed under complaint CA-00018118-003 above.

CA-00018118-007 Complainant under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Penalisation   

The Complainant maintained that he refused to cooperate with the Respondent to facilitate a breach the Organisation of Working Time Act with regard to his annual leave entitlements, his maximum hours per week, and his public holiday entitlements. He maintained that as he regularly sought to have these matters addressed the Respondent refused to reasonably deal with such matters.

The Complainant submitted that as he sought to seek his annual leave entitlements in particular, and to be paid for his extra working hours up to May 2017, that he was not afforded a reasonable response by the Respondent. The Complainant contended that as a result of seeking his entitlements he was isolated by the respondent and he suffered to his detriment due to not having his annual leave rights honoured.

The Complainant submitted that his efforts to address his entitlements under the Organisation of Working Time Act were ignored and rejected and where he was subject to mistreatment. He maintained this mistreatment included the Respondent refusing to speak to him positively and being frozen out. As a consequence, the Complainant maintained that suffered extreme stress and anxiety. In particular he advised that issues came to the fore in late September 2017 when he had taken some sick leave and where he was told at the time when he was seeking his annual leave that he had no annual leave left. He maintained that he had only taken one week’s annual leave and the remainder of the time he had taken off was due to an injury to his hand in May, a week off due to a dispute with his employer, and where he had taken sick leave in September 2017.

The Complainant maintained that he was confused with regard to what his entitlements were and this is demonstrated in text messages between himself and the Respondent where he was seeking clarification regarding his holidays. He was surprised to be told that the payments he received earlier during the year when he was sick or off work were actually payments in lieu of his annual leave entitlements. By 1st October 2017 he did not know where he stood. For him the Respondent had decided to deny him his holiday entitlements by telling him he had already been paid for a month’s leave, a situation he was disputing with the Respondent.

At that point the Complainant decided to leave the organisation. He maintained that he was being forced to agree to breaches in the Organisation of Working Time Act and to agree to an unlawful act by allowing the Respondent to avoid paying him for his annual leave entitlements and by insisting that his paid sick leave amounted to his holiday leave. He advised that the isolation and difficulties he was experiencing in the weeks prior to this amounted to penalisation and unfair treatment.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

CA-00018118-001 Complainant under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 The Respondent acknowledged that it did not issue the Complainant with terms and conditions of employment in writing explaining this was an oversight due to the start-up of a new business.

CA-00018118-003 Complainant under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Annual Leave Entitlements                                                                                           

The Respondent acknowledged that the Complainant had a week’s leave in May 2017 in Portugal but that due to his injury he asked to be paid for the two weeks as he could not return to work. The Respondent maintained they did not have a paid sick leave policy so he was happy to treat the Sick leave as annual leave so that the Complainant would get paid. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant was not entitled to sick pay and it was by agreement with the Complainant that his sick leave was treated as annual leave.

The Respondent also argued that the Complainant refused to attend work for a week during June 2017 and it paid the Respondent during that period. The Respondent therefore accounted for that time as annual leave rather than deduct pay from the Complainant. The Respondent also maintained that for the 11 days in September 2017 that the Complainant was on sick leave and that rather than not pay him during this period the Respondent agreed to pay the Complainant in lieu of his annual leave where he had asked for this. On that basis the Respondent maintained that it was not in breach of the Complainant’s entitlements and where the Complainant had not attended work but had been paid. The Complainant was paid for time that the did not attend work and this was balanced against the Complainant’s annual leave entitlement.

The Respondent maintained that paid sick leave was never provided in writing to the Complainant. The Respondent also acknowledged that the Complainant had worked many late hours and long hours during the start-up of the business and understood that this was by agreement and that once the business turned a profit that the Complainant would be properly rewarded for his efforts.

CA-00018118-004 Complainant under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Public Holiday Entitlements

The Respondent maintained that it would have provided the Complainant with his entitlements in that when he worked on the 17th of March 2017 the following week’s pay slip shows an extra days payment which amounted to the public holiday the Complainant had worked the previous week.

The Respondent acknowledged that the Complainant did not work any of the other public holidays, but he would have received his full week’s pay.

The Respondent maintained that the Complainant had agreed to work a on a flat salary of €30,000 and where his pay was not related to work per hour. It maintained that the payslips show that the Complainant was properly paid for his public holidays in accordance with this agreement during the year.

CA-00018118-005 Complainant under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Respondent advised that in the early start up stage of the business payslips would have been printed out and made available to employees including the Complainant. It then advised that after the appointment of a book keeper/accountant payslips were emailed to staff and would have been available to the Complainant.

The Respondent advised that the Complainant was on a contract with a set salary and with a commitment that when the business improved he would be rewarded accordingly.   The Respondent denied that the Complainant was not paid for his hours worked The Respondent further advised that the Complainant would have refused to sign the working hour records when they were presented to him. This unsigned record was not provided at the hearing.

The Respondent advised that there was a roster which would have shown the hours worked by the Complainant which would have given his start and finish time and where the restaurant stopped serving from 10 o’clock. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant would not have been required to work beyond 10 o’clock in the evening. Notwithstanding the Respondent was not in a position to provide a record of the actual hours worked other than presenting a roster of starting times with no precise finishing time for the Complainant.

CA-00018118-006 Complainant under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Annual Leave Entitlements

This Complainant related to annual leave entitlements and has been addressed under complaint CA-00018118-003 above.

CA-00018118-007 Complainant under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Penalisation

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had been paid during periods of sick leave where he had asked to be provided with his holiday pay when he was out sick. Therefore, the Respondent maintained that the Complainant had been provided with his holiday leave entitlements and was not entitled to receive further paid annual leave in September 2017.

The Respondent denied penalising the Complainant. The Respondent maintained that prior to 3rd of October 2017 that he had engaged extensively with the Complainant to sort matters out and where the Respondent had agreed to pay the Complainant an extra €2,800 in a salary, but that the Complainant had rejected the extra pay. The Respondent maintained that it did not breach the Organisation of Working Time Act. The Respondent submitted that he had entered a verbal agreement with the Complainant where the Complainant agreed that for the start-up phase of the restaurant he would work extra hours on a set salary but that matters would be resolved once the business was performing. He further maintained that the Complainant was seeking more money than had been offered to him and the Complainant was unhappy with that outcome and that was the reason for his leaving. The Respondent contended that the Complainant’s departure was not due to any act of penalisation.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00018118-001 Complainant under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

Section 3(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 requires that an employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of anemployee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to theemployee a statement in writing containing…particulars of the terms ofthe employee’s employment.

Based on the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Respondent has failed to meet its obligations under the Act.

CA-00018118-003 Complainant under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Annual Leave Entitlements                                                                                           

In accordance with Section 19(1)(a) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this Act referred to as “annual leave”) equal to 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours. In accordance with the Act a leave year commences on 1st April. On that basis the Complainant had worked 6 Months for the 2017/18 leave year. During April and May (a 9 week period) he worked an average of 60 hours per week, and from June to end of September (a 17 week period) he was working a 40 hour week. He therefore worked 1,620 hours over that period.

Furthermore Section 23(1)(a) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 states: Where (i) an employee ceases to be employed, and(ii) the whole or any portion of the annual leave in respect of the relevant period remains to be granted to the employee, the employee shall, as compensation for the loss of that annual leave, be paid by his or her employer an amount equal to the pay, calculated at the normal weekly rate or, as the case may be, at a rate proportionate to the normal weekly rate, that he or she would have received had he or she been granted that annual leave.

I therefore find that the Complainant had earned an entitlement for two weeks leave at the time of his cessation of employment on 1st October 2017. It was also acknowledged that he had one weeks carry over leave for the leave period April 2016/March 2017.

The Complainant acknowledged that he received a week’s leave in May 2017. The other periods of his absence (a week in May 2017 due to an injury, four days in June 2017 due to a dispute, and two weeks in September 2017 due to sick leave) are in dispute between the parties. The Complainant submitted that it was agreed he would be paid for these absences whereas the Respondent submitted that he agreed to pay the absences on the basis the Complainant agreed these periods were annual leave.

In the absence of any annual leave records being presented by the Respondent or any written notification regarding sick pay I do not find in favour of the Complainant that the Respondent agreed to pay for these absences either as paid sick leave or in some other way.

I therefore find that at the time of his cessation of employment the Complainant was entitled to be paid for two weeks annual leave.

CA-00018118-004 Complainant under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Public Holiday Entitlements

Having reviewed the matter I am satisfied that the Complainant through his own evidence advised that he only worked only one public holiday, which was in March 2017. I am not satisfied that the Respondent’s evidence as shown on the payslips supports that the Complainant was in receipt of pay for his public holiday entitlements. I therefore do not find this complaint is well founded.  

CA-00018118-005 Complainant under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

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. Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 requires that I make a decision under the relevant sections of that Act.

Section 5 (1) of the Payment of Wags Act 1991 states that an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless (a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute, (b)the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or (c)in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.

Having reviewed the matter I am satisfied this dispute refers to the hours worked up to the end of May 2017 when the Complainant was working over 60 hours per week. This practice ceased from June 2017 where the Complainant worked his standard hours from that point.

In accordance with S41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. S41(8) of the Act provides that an adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the [6 month period referred to] ….(but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

The Complainant had sought an extension of this time to make his complaint to 12 months, bringing it back to the 28th of February 2017 where he alleged there was approximately 3 months that he was not paid an average of 20 hours per week. He maintained that the basis for his late application was because he was suffering ill health after he left his employment in October 2017 and where that ill health was related to the stress he experienced at work. He therefore was unwell until February 2018 and could not progress his complaint within the six-month timeframe. The Complainant stated that he met with a legal representative in February 2018 who advised him of his rights at which a time his complaint was lodged. The Complainant was not in a position to provide any medical evidence at the hearing with regard to his medical condition from October 2017. He advised that he was making a personal injury claim and that his medical assessment would be available after he has been assessed for that purpose.

Having considered this matter, as no medical opinion was presented to corroborate the unfitness of the Complainant over these months, I am not satisfied there was a reasonable cause for the delay in submitting the complaint for the under payment of wages relating to the period prior to May 2017. It is evident that the Complainant had been disputing this matter with the Respondent in the months prior to October 2017, and particularly during May and June 2017 at which time the Complainant could have brought his complaint to the WRC but did not do so. I therefore do not find there are reasonable grounds to extend the complaint period beyond 6 months.

With regard to the complaint of underpayment of wages, the Respondent maintained that the Complainant accepted the position on a set wage and he was not entitled to overtime payments. It is evident that this matter was discussed between the parties prior to June 2017 at which time the Complainant did not work any further overtime but retained his wages at the same rate. In the absence of any written terms and conditions it is not possible to ascertain the manner in which the Complainant wages were to be calculated. The fact that from June 2018 he received a flat rate of pay for a standard week supports the proposition that this flat wage was in fact his agreed wage, and where he was to be compensated for working any extra hours. This corroborates with the Respondent’s statement that once the business was performing the Complainant would be compensated. It is noted the Complainant’s pay slips state an hourly rate of pay being €13 per hour.

In the absence of any written contract to the contrary I find that the Complainant had a reasonable expectation that he would be paid for the hours he actually worked. I therefore find that for the during the month of May, a five-week month, the Complainant worked an average 15 hours above the standard week each week, and this five-week period. During this month he was not paid for any extra hours he worked. As such I find the Respondent is in breach of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act. I also find that any claim for the non-payment of wages prior to May 2017 is deemed to be out of time.

The Complainant maintained contrary to the Respondents assertions that he would have worked beyond 10 o’clock in the evening. Through cross examination the Respondent was not in a position to verify as a matter of fact that Complainant did not work beyond 10 o’clock. No working time records were provided at the hearing.

CA-00018118-006 Complainant under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Penalisation

This Complainant related to annual leave entitlements and has been addressed under complaint CA-00018118-003 above.

CA-00018118-007 Complainant under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Penalisation

Under Section 26 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, an employer should not penalise an employee for having in good faith opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under the Organisation of Working Time Act.

The Complainant maintained that he had no option but to leave his employment where he was effectively constructively dismissed as a consequence of the Respondent’s behaviour in failing to address his excessive working hours, his non-payment for his working hours, his failure to provide the Complainant with his annual leave entitlements, and failure to provide the Complainant with his public holiday entitlements.

Whilst I acknowledge the Complainant had certainly become frustrated with the actions of the Respondent, it is clear to me that there were engagements between the parties through Facebook text messaging and other means to seek to resolve the matter but there was a different view between the parties with regard to the Complainant’s entitlements. These matters were still being explored by the parties when the Complainant resigned. Of significance I note the Respondent did reduce the hours of work for the Complainant from June 2017, and where the parties continued what appears to have been a reasonable working relationship from that point which is reflected in the sample Facebook messages being exchanged between them.   Matters escalated again between the parties in late September 2017 when the Complainant was seeking his annual leave entitlements. It was during this exchange the Complainant was frustrated with how matters were progressing, and he decided to resign. Other than a general statement about being isolated, the Complainant has not specified any clear act of penalisation. The dispute between the parties at this time related to payment for annual leave and a failure of the parties to agree to the entitlements. I find by October 2017, as the Complainant was frustrated with the relationship and the dispute he found himself in with the Respondent, so he decided to leave. It is only after the Complainant left that he progressed his complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act.

Under these circumstances I do not find any clear act of penalisation occurred. I therefore do not find that the complaint the Respondent infringed s26 of the Act is well founded and therefore do not uphold the complaint of penalisation.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the Complainants in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

CA-00018118-001 Complainant under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

In accordance with Section 7 of the Act I find that the complaint is well founded and that the Respondent has failed to provide the Complainant with written terms of his conditions of employment.     The absence of these written terms has significantly contributed to the disputes under other employment rights which occurred between the parties, particularly in relation to the payment during sick leave and absence, the payment of annual leave entitlements, and payment for the Complainant’s working hours. It is probable none of the aforementioned disputes would have occurred had the Respondent met his obligations under Section 3 of the Act.

I therefore order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of four weeks pay at a weekly rate of €580.42 per week, amounting to €2321.68 after the making of any lawful deduction.

CA-00018118-003 Complainant under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Annual Leave Entitlements

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 requires me to decide in accordance with redress options under the Act.

I have found that the claim is well founded and I order the Respondent to pay the complainant for two weeks annual leave at the rate of €580.42 (totalling €1,160.84) after the making of any lawful deduction in accordance with his entitlements under S19 which are calculated in accordance with his entitlement under S21 regarding the cessation of employment.

CA-00018118-004 Complainant under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Public Holiday Entitlements

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 requires me to decide in accordance with the redress options under the Act.

In accordance with Section 21(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, if an employee is required to work on a public holiday, an employee shall, be entitled to either a paid day off within a month of that day, an additional day of annual leave, or an additional day’s pay.

I have not found this complaint is well founded.

CA-00018118-005 Complainant under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

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. As specified by Schedule 6, Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides that upon finding a complaint well-founded, an Adjudication Officer may direct an employer to pay an employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding the net amount of the wages (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that- (i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made.

As I have found the complaint is well founded as respects the deductions from the Complainant’s wages, I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of two week’s pay amounting to €1,160.84 after the making of any lawful deduction.

CA-00018118-006 Complainant under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Penalisation

This Complainant related to annual leave entitlements and has been addressed and decided upon under complaint CA-00018118-003 above.

CA-00018118-007 Complainant under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Penalisation

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 requires me to decide in accordance with the redress options under the Act.

In accordance with Section 26 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, an employer shall not penalise an employee for having in good faith opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under the Act.

Having considered this complaint, I do not find it is well founded.

Dated:   29/04/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

Key Words: