Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Bio Decontamination Engineer

A Bio Decontamination Business 

Representatives

 Appeared in Person  

 Director

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00035079-001

06/03/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00035079-002

06/03/2020

On 6 March 2020, the Complainant submitted two complaints to the WRC. He submitted that he had not received extra pay for Sundays and had been denied public holiday /annual leave during the 18 months of his employment. Both complaints were submitted under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997,

The Respondent rejected all claims and submitted that the complainant had voluntarily engaged in an atypical working pattern, which was demand led.

The Complainant, in presenting his own case, submitted an abundance of emails/what’s app messages and texts to outline his case.

The Respondent also presented his own case on behalf of the company. He submitted a number of written outlines in response to the claims.

At hearing, a formal request was made in accordance with Section 25 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1995 for records of annual leave 2018/2019. A response was received two days post hearing and shared with the complainant.

I also requested sight of the entire contract of employment.

Both parties submitted peripheral responses outside those requests. I have not taken the peripheral responses into account as they did not flow from my request to the parties.

The Complainant worked as a Bio Decontamination Engineer for the Respondent business from 10 July 2018 to his leaving the position on 1 January 2020.

He outlined that he was unsure on the terms of his employment from the outset in July 2018. He expressed a high level of dissatisfaction that he had engaged in the work as while he liked the job content, he soon became dissatisfied with the precarious nature of the application of some of his terms and conditions of employment.  He understood that other employees experienced more favourable terms of employment.

The Complainant expressed a high level of anger against the respondent through his written communique in advance of the hearing. Regrettably, he submitted several confrontational and combative statements aimed at the respondent both in advance of and during the hearing. He outlined that his period of employment had been misconstrued by his former employer.

 The Complainant submitted that he had made repeated attempts to engage in meaningful negotiations on the terms of his contract but was “fobbed off “by the respondent.

The complainant exhibited extracts of a contract of employment and was requested to submit the entire document for review.

CA-00035079-001   Sunday Pay

Preliminary Issue

The Complainant filed his claim for Sunday pay on 6 March 2020. He had left employment on 1 January 2020. I explained the limitation of my jurisdiction in accordance with Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. That is that I hold initial jurisdiction for a six-month period immediately preceding receipt of the complaint.

 The Complainant sought an extension of time in accordance with section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.

He submitted that he was unable to raise the claim earlier as he had asked for Sunday pay earlier, but this had been rejected by the respondent. He had been “fobbed off”.

 In turn, he did not wish to push his luck and lose his job.

Substantive Complaint:

The Complainant submitted that he had not received extra pay for Sunday work for the first 18 months of his employment. This changed approximately four weeks before he left the Company.

The Complainant introduced himself as a full-time lone worker and outlined that he was one of four employees who worked across a large geographical area in pursuance of decontamination in hospital settings.

 He was unsure just when he received his contract of employment, but disputed the respondent recall of July 2018. He did not sign the contract and drew attention to clauses on “on call “or 1:3 or 1:4 and Sunday working as “on occasion, there may be requirement for weekend work paid in line with rates above “These rates referred to €120 .00 per day, which later increased to €140.00.

He had sought extra pay to cover Sundays in July 2019 but had been informed that every day was the same. He submitted that he had worked 14 Sundays during his employment and had been paid extra for Easter Sunday 2019 alone.

The Complainant was vague on his interface with Sunday working as a roster system anticipated to cover an on-call situation was never formalised.

The Complainant submitted that he had sought to trigger the “review clause “in his contract of employment during July 2019, but the review had not materialised. He accepted that pay for Sunday had been upwardly aligned during the last quarter of 2019.

The Complainant exhibited a record of payments received up to end of September 2019, which reflected payment at €200 for Sundays 25 August and 22 September 2019.

The Complainant submitted that he had regrettably placed himself at the disposal of the company and had not been recognised for proper payment for his Sunday work. He made submissions on the arduous nature of the work and the exacting standards which accompanied the work.

In response to the Respondents post hearing submission of records, the complainant took issue with the way these were presented and responded that he had not taken any leave during the calendar year of 2018 and he had taken 7 days unpaid leave during 2019. The remainder of his time away from the Business was weekend off or sick leave. He recalled having one day off per week but took issue that time off was always subject to interruption to take “call outs “.

CA-00035079-002   Annual Leave /Public Holidays

The Complainant submitted that he had not received Annual Leave for the 18 months of his employment.

The Complainant submitted he did not know when he was off duty. He was not party to a roster and days off were often interrupted by the Business where he responded to requests for call outs.

He refuted that he worked an average of 10 hours per week. His attendance at hospitals was backed up by loading up time and travel time and the conflation of his actual hours of work was offensive.

The complainant submitted that he was not asked to sign the contract and he had been unable to print it off.

The Complainant told the hearing that he discovered that other employees had recourse to annual leave and sick pay and he did not.

He claimed that he ought to have been given annual leave and pay for public holidays. He later qualified that he may have taken 5 to 6 days off during his employment.

CA-00035079-003 Public Holidays

Preliminary Issue:

The Complainant submitted the same argument in support of seeking an extension of time as in CA-00035079-001.

Substantive Case:

The Complainant submitted that he had not received payment for public holidays during the 18 months of his employment.

He recalled getting some additional pay at Christmas 2018 and Easter 2019 but neither periods were reflected as public holidays in his pay.

The Complainant submitted that he had sought contract review to reflect public holidays, but this had not occurred before he left work.

He was uncertain as to which public holidays he had worked during the cognisable period discussed at hearing.

The Respondent operates a busy Decontamination Business on an “ad hoc basis” over   a seven-day week basis. The Respondent submitted that the complainant had been provided with a contract of employment in July 2019 but had not returned it.

There are 5 employees in the Business.

The Respondent challenged the complainant’s version of events expounded at hearing and through the abundance of extracts from inter party “What’s app” conversations exchanged during the employment. He submitted that the employment relationship flowed from the contract agreed between the parties. The work was a-typical in terms of it being a demand led service. He understood that the complainant had satisfied with the work prior to his sudden departure in December 2019.

CA-00035079-001   Sunday Pay

Preliminary Issue:

The Respondent disputed the complainant’s submission on being impeded from serving an earlier claim for Sunday pay through fear of job loss. He submitted that he had enjoyed cordial relations with the complainant up until his premature exit from the company on 31 December 2019. He had not challenged the rate paid for Sundays during his employment.

The Respondent submitted that the cognisable period for the claim was 6 months preceding the complaint and there were no sustained grounds to extend this in the circumstances.

Substantive Case:

The respondent introduced the complainant as a Part time worker in a new and emerging Business, who was engaged in an “on demand “call out work pattern. He submitted two written submissions in advance of the hearing. He also furnished a copy of the contract post hearing.

The respondent outlined that the Complainant was paid a generous fixed payment per call out. This formed the basis of the working relationship. This composite rate was initially agreed at €120 per day and did not attract an additional Sunday rate.

The Respondent recalled discussing the terms of the complainant’s contract with him prior to his commencing work in July 2018. The complainant did not raise any issues at that time.

The contract provided:

“On occasions there may be a requirement for weekend work which would be paid in line with rates above “

“Job “is defined as a visit to a hospital on a given day. There was provision for a “top up “payment to reflect multiplicity of calls to “a maximum of €200 per call out.

During 2019, the Complainant attended 162 working days which comprised 208 visits. On occasion, he received the enhanced rate for the work. The Respondent was keen to impress on the hearing that the fee per call out reflected “as little as 2 hours but mostly 3 or 4 hrs “He refuted the complainant’s reliance on several extended trips to Dublin.

The Respondent reviewed pay rates in August 2019 and revised the call out rate Monday to Friday to €140 and Saturday /Sunday attracted a €200 payment.

The Respondent responded to the complainant’s submission that he had not taken his query regarding Sunday pay seriously in July 2019. He placed a “light hearted “context on the reference to “bugs not differentiating days “. He confirmed that he had paid the complainant extra for Easter 2019.

The Respondent confirmed that the complainant had received €200 Sunday pay for August 25, 2019.

The Respondent submitted that no contravention of the Act had occurred within the cognisable period of September 2019 to March 2020 and the claim should be disallowed.

CA-00035079-002   Annual Leave

The Respondent disputed the claim. He explained that holidays were paid upfront and detailed as such in the contract of employment. This was the preferred method as it was impossible to project or predict the number of days worked by the complainant.

The Respondent quoted from the contract:

Due to the flexible and part time nature of the job, holiday pay is paid up front. The basic rates of pay as outlined above already include an allowance for holiday pay. If you choose to take time off, no additional holiday pay will be payable.

For your information, this allowance has been calculated as approximately 9% of basic rate which is comparable pro rata with 22 days holidays per annum for a full-time employee

€110 plus €10 =€120 per job.

It is expected that you will take unpaid annual leave during the year where you will be unavailable for work. This would be limited to 4 weeks. Notice period for holiday request are 4 weeks.

The Respondent submitted that the complainant frequently booked time off and undertook to submit records of same.

These records arrived post hearing and were exchange with the Complainant.

2018 Complainant worked 84 days out of possible 180 days, 7-day calculator

            Complainant worked 84 days out of possible 128 days, 5-day calculator

2019 Complainant worked 162 days out of 365 days, 7-day calculator

           Complainant worked 162 days out of 261 days, 5-day calculator

The Complainant relied on the casual social welfare system to balance his direct earnings.

The Respondent submitted that the complainant availed of 7 annual leave days in the calendar year 2018 and 13 days in 2019.

He disputed any liability to the complainant.

CA-00035079-003

Public Holiday

The Respondent re-iterated his opposition to granting the complainant an extension in the time limit on his claim.

Substantive Case:

The Respondent relied on the preliminary argument on time limits in relation to this claim. He submitted that there was no specific provision for public holidays outlined in the contract of employment.

The Complainant received enhanced payment in terms of multiplicity of visits during a day’s work, but there was no provision for public holiday pay outside the front-loaded allowance paid for annual leave

I have considered both parties oral and written submissions in this case.

 I noted early in the hearing that the cessation of employment carried with it a high level of residual regret from the complainant’s perspective. He explained that he had placed himself at total disposal to the company and his contribution had been misrepresented by the Respondent. He carried with him a strong sense of injustice that he was treated in a different way to existing and new employees.

The Respondent explained that he honoured the terms of the contract of employment. The Company was growing, and the Complainants terms were reviewed and upwardly aligned from August 2019 onwards to include a payment for Sunday work.

The Complainant submitted a lot of peripheral details of his working life that had no direct correlation to the claims before me. I must set those details aside as I concentrate on the claims.

It just falls for me to remark that the complainant’s departure was not accompanied by any formal ceremony on leaving. He did not engage in an Exit Interview or feedback on his departure. I could not establish that he raised a formal grievance on Sunday working during his employment. I accept that he worked 14 Sundays between July 2018 and December 2019. I also accept that the complainant sought to trigger the review clause in his contract, which permitted a review post one-year service. The absence of this review seemed to generate a serious fault line in the working relationship.

I consider that the parties would have been well served to have had a direct engagement on this topic much sooner than the day of hearing.

CA-00035079-001   Sunday Pay

Preliminary Issue:

The Complainant requested that I grant him the terms of section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and allow him to date his claim to March 7, 2019 onwards. The Respondent was totally opposed to the claims submitted by the complainant. He argued that the complainant had no grounds to fear an earlier dialogue on the topic. He recalled the clarification sought by the complainant in July 2019 on whether Sunday pay was permitted? He was clear that the payment for Sunday work commenced in August 2019 and constituted a term of the complainant’s employment to the date of his departure.

My jurisdiction emanates from Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.

6) Subject to subsection (8), 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.

Section 41(8) of the Act permits an extension in time on reasonable cause grounds.

In Labour Court Determination WTC0338, 2003, Cementation Skanska v Carroll, the Court set out the test for the correct application of the circumstances for Reasonable Cause.

“… It is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. ….. The Claimants failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence, there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time “

The Court goes on to point to the length of the delay and whether the respondent has suffered prejudice by the delay. They also emphasised that the complainant has a “good arguable case “

I have considered the abundance of what’s app messages presented by the complainant at hearing. I have also reflected on both party’s evidence.

The What’s app messages certainly indicate that the complainant placed himself firmly at the disposal of the company throughout his employment. He is depicted as keen for work and on many occasions anticipated shortfall in personnel accompanied by his offer of help.

I am struck by the first record of a query being raised about Sunday pay in July 2019 by the complainant. This request was qualified by a reference that he had not undertaken many Sundays and did not carry any sense of unease.

I accept that the contract provided a review period post one year of employment and this did not materialise. The tone and tenure of the communique around this review smacked of frustration but did not demonstrate fear of the respondent.

I found that the complainants direct evidence adduced a weariness that his contribution to the company was managed differently to other workers. However, I found nothing to hamper the complainant amounting an earlier claim to WRC prior to March 6, 2020. To me, he showed no fear of the respondent or of job loss.

I cannot accept that the complainant had reasonable grounds to justify my applying an extension of time in accordance with Section 41(8).

This part of his claim is not well founded, and I find that the cognisable period encompassing this claim must stand as 7 September 2019 to 6 March 2020. The Complainant left employment on 31 December 2019.

Substantive case:

Both sides accepted at hearing that the payment for Sunday work was upwardly aligned from the flat rate of €140 per day to €200 per day during August 2019, date unspecified.

Section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act provides that an employee required to work on Sunday without previous provision of a Sunday rate should receive additional compensation for doing so.

Sunday work: supplemental provisions.

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 under Part IV beforea 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.

The upward alignment to a specific Sunday rate of €200 in August 2019 did not constitute a Collective Agreement and does not appear to have been committed to writing in the form of a revised contract of employment.

This may explain the complainant’s initial confusion regarding the evolution of Sunday pay at this employment and his sense of disappointment regarding his requested annual review.

I am satisfied that a specific Sunday rate of €200 in accordance with section 14(1)(b) of the Act was at play in the complainant’s case for the entirety of the cognisable period. Therefore, I cannot establish a contravention of Section 14 of the Act within this period.

I find the claim to be not well founded.

CA-00035079-002   Annual Leave

I have given careful consideration to this claim and the parties oral and written submission. My jurisdiction here rests in Section 19(1) -19(6) and Section 23 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

The Complainant has claimed payment for annual leave on cessation of his employment.

  Entitlement to annual leave.

19

19.— (1) Subject to the First Schedule(which contains transitional provisions in respect of the leave years 1996 to 1998), an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this Act referred to as “ annual leave”) equal to—

( a) 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment),

( b) one-third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours, or

( c) 8 per cent. of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks):

Provided that if more than one of the preceding paragraphs is applicable in the case concerned and the period of annual leave of the employee, determined in accordance with each of those paragraphs, is not identical, the annual leave to which the employee shall be entitled shall be equal to whichever of those periods is the greater.

 (1A) For the purposes of this section, a day that an employee was absent from work due to illness shall, if the employee provided to his or her employer a certificate of a registered medical practitioner in respect of that illness, be deemed to be a day on which the employee was —

(a) at his or her place of work or at his or her employer ’ s disposal, and

(b) carrying on or performing the activities or duties of his or her work.

(2) A day which would be regarded as a day of annual leave shall, if the employee concerned is ill on that day and furnishes to his or her employer a certificate of a registered medical practitioner in respect of his or her illness, not be regarded, for the purposes of this Act, as a day of annual leave.

(3) The annual leave of an employee who works 8 or more months in a leave year shall, subject to the provisions of any employment regulation order, registered employment agreement, collective agreement or any agreement between the employee and his or her employer, include an unbroken period of 2 weeks.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (2) or any other provision of this Act but without prejudice to the employee’s entitlements under subsection (1), the reference in subsection (3) to an unbroken period of 2 weeks includes a reference to such a period that includes one or more public holidays or days on which the employee concerned is ill.

(5) An employee shall, for the purposes of subsection (1), be regarded as having worked on a day of annual leave the hours he or she would have worked on that day had it not been a day of annual leave.

(6) References in this section to a working week shall be construed as references to the number of days that the employee concerned usually works in a week.

I think it is important that both parties reflect on the composition on Section 19 of the Act above.

The expression “working week” is not defined in the Act, the Labour Court has ruled that it can only be construed as referring to the number of days or hours encompassing each work cycle. Irish Ferries v Seamen’s Union of Ireland, DWT 35/2001

In Royal Liver Assurance Ltd V SIPTU DWT 41/2001, The Labour Court framed an apt description of annual leave as:

“a term of common usage in Industrial Relations and is well understood as meaning a period of rest and relaxation during which a worker is paid his normal wages without any obligation to work or provide any service to the employer.”

The Court of Justice of the European Union has generated a considerable body of case law on annual leave and has hallmarked the entitlement of workers to paid annual leave as a

 “particularly important principle of Community Law from which there can be no derogations “

Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging v Staat der Nederlanden[2006] ECR 1-3423

The Labour Court has decided that a weekly allowance cannot be paid to an employee in lieu of his statutory annual leave entitlement.

In Fasercourt ltd T/A Casey Enterprises and Shay O Brien DWT 0743 , 2007 , the former Chairman of the Labour Court drew on the conjoined cases of C-131/04 Robinson -Steele C RD Retail services ltd, C-257/04 Michael  Jason Clarke v Frank Staddon ltd and JC Caulfield and Ors v Hanson Clay Products ltd ECR 1 0253 when he stated with reference to EC Directive 93/104/EC  :

The fact that the type of arrangement relied upon by the Respondent does not meet the requirements of the Directive and the Act has been put beyond doubt by the recent decision of the ECJ (in the cases above).

In that case the Court of Justice made it clear that the relevant obligation imposed on an employer under the Directive can only be met by paying an employee in respect of holidays at the time the holidays are taken. The decision is absolutely binding on this Court. Consequently, the defence to the within claim relied upon by the Respondent is unsustainable in law.

I have found this to be an unusual and variable employment, where the complainant clearly made himself available for work on a consistent basis. The nature of the job reflected that demand. However, I found that the contract was not drafted in compliance with section 19 of the Act or with due regard to Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC.

In Lock v British Gas Trading ltd [2014] CJEU C -539/12, The Court of Justice considered by way of Preliminary Ruling payment and calculation of holiday pay where the complainant’s remuneration was largely commission based. There are overlaps in that case and the instant case. The First Chamber confirmed that the commission should be taken into account as not to do so may deter a worker from taking annual leave contrary to the objective of Article 7.

In the instant case, the complainant placed himself at the disposal of the company during his “down time “and this blurred the boundaries between home and work time. I appreciate that the Respondent did not place any pressure on the complainant to work during these times, however, none the less, the boundaries were unhelpfully blurred and not within the objective of the Act where rest time and work time are to be classed as separate entities. I note that the contract provided that the complainant was expected to take unpaid annual leave outside the front-loaded arrangement, however, I could not identify a mechanism by which this was achieved by the respondent.

I accept that the complainant availed of some pre-booked rest time during employment. I also appreciate that this was a fast-expanding business. However, I have identified a contravention of section 19 of the Act.

The Complainant was not provided with paid annual leave in accordance with the Act. O Brien applied.

Section 23 allows for a payment of annual leave owed at the end of employment.

23.—  (1) (a) 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 have found the claim well founded.

CA-00035079-003 Public Holiday

I have not found grounds to extend the Statutory Time limit in this complaint. Therefore, the cognisable period is September 7, 2019 to March 6, 2020.

The Complainant has submitted that he did not receive payment for public holidays during his employment. He was unclear just how many public holidays he worked but referred to having received extra for some public holidays outside of the cognisable period.

The Respondent confirmed that the preferential payments were made for multiplicity of visits and a specific payment for public holidays was not applied to the complainants a typical work pattern.

Entitlement in respect of public holidays.

21

21.— (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an employee shall, in respect of a public holiday, be entitled to whichever one of the following his or her employer determines, namely—

(a) a paid day off on that day,

( b) a paid day off within a month of that day,

( c) an additional day of annual leave,

( d) an additional day’s pay:

Provided that if the day on which the public holiday falls is a day on which the employee would, apart from this subsection, be entitled to a paid day off this subsection shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted therefrom.

Pay in respect of a Public Holiday is calculated in the same way as pay for annual leave . If the complainant does not normally work on the day on which a Public Holiday falls, then a payment of 1/5 of a week’s pay is made.

I could not identify a payment made in accordance with section 21 of the Act within the cognisable period.

It is regrettable that the review which formed an express term of the contract post one year’s employment did not ensue as this matter may well have been addressed within the employment relationship.

I have found that the claim is well founded.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

CA-00035079-001   Sunday Pay

The claim is  not well founded.

CA-00035079-002   Annual Leave

I have found the claim well founded . I order the Respondent to pay the complainant €2,500 in compensation for the contravention of Section 19 of the Act.

In accordance with section 27 (3) (b) I require the Respondent to adhere to the provisions of section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 in all future employments and that the contract of employment reflects this obligation.

CA-00035079-003 Public Holiday

I have not found grounds to extend the Statutory Time limit in this complaint. Therefore, the cognisable period is September 7, 2019 to March 6, 2020.

I have identified a breach of section 21 of the Act. I order the Respondent to pay the complainant €500 in compensation for the contravention.

In accordance with section 27 (3) (b) I require the Respondent to adhere to the provisions of section 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 in all future employments and that the contract of employment reflects this obligation.

Sunday Pay, Annual Leave/Public Holiday