Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Wayne  Timmons

Clare County Council

Representatives

Aine Feeney, SIPTU Workers Rights Centre

 Keith Irvine, LGMA

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-00046086-002

10/09/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00046086-003

10/09/2021

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

CA-00046086-004

10/09/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

CA-00046086-005

10/09/2021

The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 5th June 2021 as a Temporary Beach Lifeguard. He was then appointed as a Temporary Senior Beach Lifeguard with effect from 5th June 2021. He was paid €16.07 gross per hour.

On 10th September 2021, the Complainant referred to the Director General of the WRC his complaints and a dispute against the Respondent. 

The dispute under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 was withdrawn prior to the hearing. The complaint bearing reference number CA-00046086-03 under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 was not pursued by the Complainant and was withdrawn at the hearing.

SIPTU on behalf of the Complainant submits as follows.

The Complainant has been employed by the Respondent since in or about June 2007. The Complainant’s last assignment began on 5th June 2021 as a Temporary Lifeguard through the provision of Fixed Term Contract, the 14th such contract provided to the Complainant. The Complainant was re-employed annually until March 2022, when he was informed that the Respondent would not be proceeding with his application for the coming year.

The Complainant alleges that he did not receive his public holiday entitlements.

SIPTU submits that the Respondent was subject to Workplace Relations Commission inspection in 2020 in terms of irregularities regarding Sunday premium, public holidays and other matters. The inspection uncovered that the Respondent did not pay Sunday premium nor applied the benefits of public holidays to the Lifeguards. The Respondent was requested to correct, what was a clear breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, with immediate effect. The Respondent corrected the inconsistency and also paid the retrospective element to the Lifeguards. The inspection resulted in payments for public holidays in accordance with the Act and established a rate for Sunday premium as time and a half. These arrangements continued until 2020. However, in 2021 the Respondent made a unilateral decision to deviate from the existing agreed arrangements and requirements and acted in contravention of the Act in terms of public holidays benefits and Sunday pay.

The Complainant’s Lifeguard assignment in the year 2021 began on 5th June, in advance of the 7th of June public holiday. Despite the requirements under the Act and the WRC inspection, the Respondent did not pay the Complainant his public holiday entitlements as set out in the Act. The Complainant worked on 7th June 2021 and did not receive his public holiday entitlement. The Complainant asserts that he is owed €112.49.

Direct evidence and cross-examination of Mr. Timmons, the Complainant

The Complainant said that he had worked for the Respondent every season for many years as a Lifeguard and Senior Lifeguard. He worked at the busiest beach in the country. He had a team of 4-6  lifeguards reporting to him. Mr. Timmons said that he used to be paid extra “large beach pay” which was removed following the issue with the public holidays and Sunday premium.

Mr. Timmons said that, after the WRC inspection, in the 2020 season the matter of Sunday premium and public holidays was rectified and arrears were paid. In the 2021 season, the Respondent removed the time and a half Sunday premium payment, double pay for June public holiday and large beach pay. Mr. Timmons said that he raised the issue locally with his line manager, payroll, and involved SIPTU.

LGMA, on behalf of the Respondent submits as follows.

The Complainant was employed as a Temporary Beach Lifeguard with the Council from 5th June 2021 until 11th September 2021 per his contract of employment. The Complainant was employed as a temporary employee in the role of Beach Lifeguard and did so similarly on a number of occasions previously relating to the temporary needs of the Council for Beach Lifeguards which arises during the summer months between June and September.

In relation to this complaint, it is noted that the WRC complaint was submitted on 10th September 2021 where the cognisable period is 6 months prior to the complaint being submitted to the WRC. The Complainant began employment on 3rd June 2021 with the June public holiday falling on Monday 7th June 2021.

Section 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 details entitlements in relation to public holiday at section 21 (1) where section 21 (4) states;-

(4) Subsection (1) shall not apply, as respects a particular public holiday, to an employee…unless he or she has worked for the employer concerned at least 40 hours during the period of 5 weeks ending on the day before that public holiday.

The Complainant had only started with the Respondent two days prior to the public holiday and had not worked 40 hours in the period prior to the public holiday and was therefore not entitled to the public holiday payment in accordance with the Act.

The Complainant alleges that he did not receive his public holiday entitlements for the public holiday that fell on 7th June 2021.

Section 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 provides as follows;-

21. Entitlement in respect of public holidays

(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.

(2) An employee may, not later than 21 days before the public holiday concerned, request his or her employer to make, as respects the employee, a determination under subsection (1) in relation to a particular public holiday and notify the employee of that determination at least 14 days before that holiday.

(3) If an employer fails to comply with a request under subsection (2), he or she shall be deemed to have determined that the entitlement of the employee concerned under subsection (1) shall be to a paid day off on the public holiday concerned or, in a case to which the proviso to subsection (1) applies, to an additional day's pay.

(4) Subsection (1) shall not apply, as respects a particular public holiday, to an employee (not being an employee who is a whole-time employee) unless he or she has worked for the employer concerned at least 40 hours during the period of 5 weeks ending on the day before that public holiday.

(5) Subsection (1) shall not apply, as respects a particular public holiday, to an employee who is, other than on the commencement of this section, absent from work immediately before that public holiday in any of the cases specified in the Third Schedule.

(6) For the avoidance of doubt, the reference in the proviso to subsection (1) to a day on which the employee is entitled to a paid day off includes a reference to any day on which he or she is not required to work, the pay to which he or she is entitled in respect of a week or other period being regarded, for this purpose, as receivable by him or her in respect of the day or days in that period on which he or she is not required to work as well as the day or days in that period on which he or she is required to work.

There was no dispute that the Complainant commenced his employment on 5th June 2021. There was no dispute that the Complainant was a full-time employee of the Respondent.

The Complainant argued that he was entitled to the public holiday entitlement for the public holiday falling on 7th June 2021. The Respondent argued that the Complainant did not receive any public holiday entitlement as he had not worked 40 hours during the period of 5 weeks ending on the day before the public holiday.

I note that subsection 4 deals with the entitlements of the employees “not being an employee who is a whole-time employee” i.e., part-time employees. There was no dispute that the Complainant was a full-time employee of the Respondent and, therefore, the provision of subsection 4 does not apply to him and he was entitled to the public holiday benefit.

I declare this complaint to be well founded. I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant €112.49 (7 hours x €16.07) in respect of the public holiday entitlement for the public holiday falling on 7th June 2021. In addition, I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant €100 in compensation for the breach of the Act.

SIPTU on behalf of the Complainant submits as follows.

The Respondent unilaterally decided to withdraw and not to apply the Sunday premium. Furthermore, the Respondent tried to circumvent the meaning of Section 14 of the Act by stating that the rate of €14.17 includes Sunday premium.

The Respondent established the rate for working on Sunday at a rate of time and a half of basic hourly rate. That rate is applicable to outdoor staff working for the Respondent, therefore is agreed and recognised and was also paid to the Complainant and other Lifeguards. Furthermore, the rate of €14.17 per hour, as outlined in the Complainant’s contract from 2021 is the equivalent to basic General Operative rate, which under the Circular EL 02/2020: Application of 01 October 2020 pay adjustments does not include Sunday premium. The Respondent unilaterally withdrew the agreed compensatory rate of 1.5 times for working on Sundays and then tried to circumvent the meaning and intentions of the Act by using the basic pay rate for outdoor staff as set out in the Circular.

Summary of the direct evidence and cross-examination of Mr. Timmons, the Complainant

The Complainant said that he had worked for the Respondent every season for many years as a Lifeguard and Senior Lifeguard. He worked at the busiest beach in the country. He had a team of 4-6  lifeguards reporting to him. Mr. Timmons said that he used to be paid extra “large beach pay” which was removed following the issue with the public holidays and Sunday premium.

Mr. Timmons said that, after the WRC inspection, in the 2020 season the matter of Sunday premium and public holidays was rectified and arrears were paid. In the 2021 season, the Respondent removed the time and a half Sunday premium payment, double pay for June public holiday and large beach pay. Mr. Timmons said that he raised the issue locally with his line manager, payroll, and involved SIPTU.

LGMA on behalf of the Respondent submits as follows.

The Respondent asserts that no details or dates have been provided in relation to this allegation.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant’s contract of employment states:

“8. Remuneration Your rate of pay is €14.17 per hour (October 2020) salary scale. You are required to work Sunday as part of your employment contract and in accordance with Section 14(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 the fact of you having to work on that day has been taken into account in the determination of your pay.”

The Complainant was furnished with a new contract of employment following his appointment to a Temporary Senior Beach Lifeguard which states:

“8. Remuneration Your rate of pay is €16.07 per hour (October 2020) salary scale. You are required to work Sunday as part of your employment contract and in accordance with Section 14(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 the fact of you having to work on that day has been taken into account in the determination of your pay.”

Following a Labour Court case (Trinity City Hotel V Kolesnik & Alfirmova) that was appealed by the employer to the High Court, the High Court confirmed on 7th October 2019 that where a contract contains a clear statement that the hourly rate of pay takes into account the requirement to work on Sundays there is no further obligation on employers to specifically set out the proportion of the hourly rate of pay which relates to Sunday working.

The Council would therefore assert that there is no case to answer in relation to the current complaint where entitlements are provided in accordance with the Act.

Section 14. Sunday work: supplemental provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act stipulates as follows;-

(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.

The instant complaint was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 10th September 2021. Therefore, the cognisable period for the instant complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 is the six-month period prior to the referral of the claim i.e., from 11th March 2021 to 10th September 2021.

For the avoidance of doubt, the within complaint was referred to the Director General of the WRC under the Organisation of Working Act and, in considering the matter, I am bound by the provisions of the Act.

In Park House Hotel Ltd v Wlodarczyk DWT 24/2016, the Labour Court said that what was intended by section 14 of the Act was that an employee who is obliged to work on a Sunday is entitled to compensation for that obligation in the form of a benefit which he or she would not receive if they were not so obliged.

I note the Respondent’s reliance on Trinity Leisure Holdings Ltd trading as Trinity City Hotel v Sofia Kolesnik and Natalia Alfimova [2019] IEHC 654. In this case, the Hight Court determined that as the employees’ contracts expressly stated that the hourly rate of pay “includes your Sunday Premium”, those contracts made it clear that the requirement to work on Sundays was included in their rate of pay i.e., “taken into account in the rate pf pay of the employee”. In executing the contracts, the employees accepted that to be the case. Binchy J. held that, if an employee wanted to assert that his or her rate of pay did not do so, then he or she “must advance some credible evidence to rebut the express provision of the employment contract”.

I also note that the Labour Court in the determination DWT192 Urbanity Ltd T/A Urbanity Coffee v Zuzana Milcochova held that;-

“The Complainant was regularly required to work on Sundays. This was agreed by the Parties at the outset of the Complainant’s employment and is provided for in her written contract of employment. The Court accepts the Respondent’s submission that the Complainant’s hourly rate of pay at all times exceeded the prevailing national minimum wage rate and that fact – having regard to the express provisions of the Complainant’s written contract quoted above – has to be taken to mean that the Complainant’s hourly rate of pay included an element of compensation for the requirement that she work on Sundays.”

In line with the above determinations, I find that the Complainant’s hourly rate of pay exceeded the prevailing national minimum wage rate and his written contract provided for work on Sunday. Therefore, the Complainant’s hourly rate of pay included an element of compensation for the requirement that he work on Sundays.

I declare this complaint to be not well founded.

SIPTU, on behalf of the Complainant submits as follows.

The Respondent has not complied with the provisions of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 and acted in contravention of Directive No 1999/70/EC F28 June 1999.

Section 9 of the Act sets down a limit to duration of time that an employee can be subjected to a fixed-term contract unless the renewal of a fixed-term contract can be justified on objective grounds. The qualifying criteria requires the employee to be, first of all be in continuous employment for a period of 3 years, and after that duration can only be employed on a fixed-term contract on one more occasion and for no more than one year. As the Complainant commenced employment in 2007, he has achieved far in excess of the four-year cumulative service with the Respondent.

The question of continuity of service is addressed, as a direct result of the actions of the Respondent. Specifically, the Respondent engaged in a flawed investigation process which was the subject matter of another WRC referral. This investigation in the June Season 2020 led to a disciplinary process which was conducted in a successive year (2021). SIPTU submits that in the event that the Respondent argues that there was a break in service, should that be the case, then the investigation would have been at an end at the completion of the Season 2020 and could not have been revisited on the Complainant’s return in June 2021. Instead, the Respondent sought to continue the process in a successive contractual year, clearly indicating that it regarded the employment as continuous and indeed sought to rely on its Disciplinary Procedures in this regard.

Furthermore, on the appeal of the sanction issued by the HR Senior Executive Manager, the appeals officer, the Director of Service stated in her decision issued on 28th July 2021,

“It is accepted that Mr Timmons was engaged on a fixed term contract which ended naturally on 13th September 2020. However, the seasonal nature of work for which Mr. Timmons is engaged on annual basis by the local authority creates a situation whereby the employment relationship is a continuous and on-going re-engagement/ rehiring…”

Consequently, the Complainant has been re-engaged annually for the summer lifeguarding season for the past 14 years and during these repeated short-term engagements his employee interests are protected in the same way as any other employee by means of fixed-term contract. As well as the benefits conveyed by this contract of employment, the Complainant is also bound by the obligations of same and is subject to the disciplinary process and procedures that apply to all employees irrespective of tenure of employment.

SIPTU relies on the Labour Court determination in Revenue Commissioner and William Beary FTD112. This decision by the Court dealt extensively with the question of continuity of service for the purpose of the application of the fixed term legislation. The Court identified that the Oireachtas in the implementation of the EU Directive had not provided for an outer temporal limit beyond which renewed contracts would not be regarded as successive and that had left it open to the Court to import such provision into the statue by way of interpretation. In forming the judgment, the Court relied on the provisions of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. The Court, in considering the application of this legislation, determined that where it can be shown that at the time the claimant’s assignment ceased it was probable that the cessation in employment would not be permanent, a lay off had come into being.

In addition, the Court further considered if a lay off could extend beyond 26 weeks, and this would have relevance to this case.  The Court relied An Post vs McNeil [1997] IEHC 161 which clearly determined that absence on lay off in excess of 26 weeks does not break continuity of service.

SIPTU submits that the Complainant is entitled to a contract of indefinite duration in accordance with Section 9 of the Act.

The matter was also considered by the Labour Court in respect of the outdoor grades with a Local Authority in Kerry County Council vs 7 Claimants FTD154. The only difference to these outdoor grades is that the employees concerned in Kerry County Council were drivers employed on fixed-term contracts, not Lifeguards. In that Case the Court held;-

“……that the complaint under Section 9 is well-founded. It is the determination of the Court that the Complainants’ fixed-term contracts of employment transmuted by operation of Section 9(3) of the Act to ones of indefinite duration as outlined above. The Court requires the Respondent to comply with the Act by recognising the permanent seasonal nature of the Complainants’ employment.”

Furthermore, the Respondent recognised that the Complainant’s employment and relationship was continuous, when continuing the disciplinary process. It is also of note that the Respondent has not advanced any objective grounds for the continued renewal of the Complainant’s contracts on a fixed-term basis.

In considering the actions of the Respondent as the employer, it is of note that the Respondent is acting on behalf of the State in respect of the implementation of the EU Directive and as such would have special degree of responsibility in ensuring that the Complainant’s rights and entitlements under legislation were protected. That additional responsibility arises from the principle of Direct Effect as demonstrated in Foster v British Gas C-188/89 where the EUCJ set out the criteria as means of defining the exact bounds of the State when it comes to the enforceability of unimplemented or incorrectly implemented directives.

SIPTU further submits that the Respondent failed to offer a contract of indefinite duration to the Complainant when such a circumstance persists.

SIPTU requests the Adjudication Officer to

(a) declare whether the complaint was or was not well founded,

(b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision,

(c) require the employer to reinstate or reengage the employee (including on a contract of indefinite duration), or

(d) require 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 2 years' remuneration in respect of the employee's employment.

In assessing the appropriate remedy, third party bodies are required to follow the judgment of the European Court of Justice Von Colson v Land Nordhein-Westfalen C-14/83 (1984) and SIPTU requests that the appropriate level of compensation is 2 years. SIPTU also seeks a compensatory element as a deterrent.

The Complainant is a respected member of the staff of the Respondent and has, in the course of his employment, gained the respect of management, colleagues and members of the public. SIPTU submits that the Respondent, has contravened the legislation and an EU Directive which exists “to establish a framework to prevent abuse from the use of successive fixed term employment contracts or relationships”.

In relation to the Respondent’s reliance on LCR19685 North Tipperary County Council and SIPTU regarding the matter of break in service, SIPTU contended that subsequent determinations overturned this case.

Summary of the direct evidence of Mr. Timmons, the Complainant

Mr. Timmons said that he received a P45 at the end of each season. Around January of each year he had to apply for the job, go through the trial, swim, and an interview. He confirmed that, luckily, he always got the job but there was no guarantee of getting it. He would have got a confirmation of whether or not he got the job about 1 week before the start date. He said that at any stage he could lose the job. Mr. Timmons confirmed that he no longer works for the Respondent and the 2021 season was his last season.

LGMA, on behalf of the Respondent submits as follows.

Per section 9(2) of the Act successive Fixed Term Contracts “shall not exceed 4 years”. The Complainant’s contracts of employment up to the point of the complaint include:

• 5 June 2010 – 5 September 2010 (13 Weeks) 39 weeks until next contract • 4 June 2011 – 4 September 2011 (13 Weeks) 39 weeks until next contract • 2 June 2012 – 16 September 2012 (15 Weeks) 37 weeks until next contract • 1 June 2013 – 21 September 2013 (16 Weeks) 36 weeks until next contract • 31 May 2014 – 14 September 2014 (15 Weeks) 37 weeks until next contract • 30 May 2015 – 13 September 2015 (15 Weeks) 37 weeks until next contract • 30 May 2016 – 12 September 2016 (15 Weeks) 37 weeks until next contract • 3 June 2017 – 11 September 2017 (14 Weeks) 37 weeks until next contract • 2 June 2018 – 17 September 2018 (15 weeks) 36 weeks until next contract • 1 June 2019 – 15 September 2019 (15 weeks) 37 weeks until next contract • 30 May 2020 – 13 September 2020 (15 weeks)37 weeks until next contract • 5 June 2021 – 12 September 2021 (14 weeks)

In relation to the Complainant’s work with the Council, LGMA refers to LCR19685 North Tipperary County Council and SIPTU, where it was stated;-

“Workers who have accrued an aggregate of 48 months casual/ seasonal employment, where any two periods were not broken by a period in excess of 26 weeks, should be entitled to placement on the panel for an indefinite duration up to normal retirement age.”

In the current case each period between employment periods were in excess of 26 weeks and as such the Complainant has no entitlement to a contract of indefinite duration. Each period of employment was a separate period of employment which was subject to an advertisement and formal recruitment process. The Complainant applied for and competed for each contract. He was not on a panel or held any expectation of new employment where each contract was terminated at its conclusion in accordance with the terms of the contract. The Respondent would therefore assert that the Complainant has not gained an entitlement to a contract of indefinite duration under the Act.

In response to the SIPTU submission, the Respondent asserted that the recommendation in relation to the disciplinary matter is irrelevant to this case.

Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 stipulates as follows; -

9. Successive fixed-term contracts

(1) Subject to subsection (4), where on or after the passing of this Act a fixed-term employee completes or has completed his or her third year of continuous employment with his or her employer or associated employer, his or her fixed-term contract may be renewed by that employer on only one occasion and any such renewal shall be for a fixed term of no longer than one year.

(2) Subject to subsection (4), where after the passing of this Act a fixed-term employee is employed by his or her employer or associated employer on two or more continuous fixed-term contracts and the date of the first such contract is subsequent to the date on which this Act is passed, the aggregate duration of such contracts shall not exceed 4 years.

(3) Where any term of a fixed-term contract purports to contravene subsection (1) or (2) that term shall have no effect and the contract concerned shall be deemed to be a contract of indefinite duration.

(4) Subsections (1) to (3) shall not apply to the renewal of a contract of employment for a fixed term where there are objective grounds justifying such a renewal.

(5) The First Schedule to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2005 shall apply for the purpose of ascertaining the period of service of an employee and whether that service has been continuous.

Section 2(1) of the Act defines a year in the following terms;

“year” means any period of 52 weeks.

The First Schedule to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 in relevant part states:

Continuity of service

1.

The service of an employee in his employment shall be deemed to be continuous unless that service is terminated by—

(a) the dismissal of the employee by his employer, or

(b) the employee voluntarily leaving his employment.

2. A lay-off shall not amount to the termination by an employer of his employee's service.

If an employee is absent from his employment for not more than 26 weeks between consecutive periods of employment because of –

• (a) a lay-off …,

such period shall count as a period of service.

The first question is whether the Complainant's employment meets the threshold set out in s.9(2) of the Act and whether the aggregate duration of the Complainant's contracts of employment exceeds four years. If it does not, s.9(2) does not come into effect and the complaint must fail.

In Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht v Dobson [2016] E.L.R. 72, the Labour Court held as follows;-

“Section 9(2) of the Act, however, states that there must be two or more successive fixed-term contracts of employment with an aggregate duration of four years before it converts into a contract of indefinite duration by operation of law. In the court's view the wording of the Act envisages the prospect that a worker may, over a period of, say, five years, be employed on a series of successive fixed-term contracts of employment, the aggregate duration of which may or may not exceed four years. Where the duration of those contracts exceeds four years, s.9(2) of the Act is triggered. Where it does not, s.9(2) has no effect. Had the Oireachtas intended otherwise it would not have included the term “aggregate duration” in s.9(2). It could have used the term four years' “service” and omitted the term “aggregate” from the statute. It did not do so and accordingly the court finds that that term must have some meaning. The only logical meaning the court can discern in this case is that periods of lay-off may be included for the purpose of determining whether a series of contracts of employment are continuous for the purposes of the Act but are not included for the purpose of calculating the aggregate duration of those contracts.”

The parties appeared to be in dispute as to the date of commencement of the first relevant contract. SIPTU submitted that the Complainant has commenced his employment in or around 2007. The Complainant said in his direct evidence that he started “many, many years ago”, “about 14 years ago”. No further details were provided by the Complainant.

The Respondent asserted that the Complainant’s employment commenced on 5th June 2010. This was followed by further eleven fixed-term contracts of employment, the final one of which ran from 5th June 2021 to 12th September 2021. The Respondent provided detailed commencement and cessation dates for each period.

Having considered the parties’ submissions and evidence, I accept the Respondent’s assertion that the Complainant commenced his employment on 5th June 2010.

A review of the dates above shows that that the “aggregate duration” of the Complainant’s contracts of employment amounts to 175 weeks, some 33 weeks short of the statutory requirement. As the aggregate duration of the Complainant's successive fixed-term contracts of employment did not exceed four years, section 9(2) of the Act has no effect.

I declare this complaint to be not well founded.

Fixed-term contract- CID – public holiday – Sunday premium