Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Suman  Bhurtel

Chicken Castle Limited Chicken Club

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Migrant Rights Centre Ireland

 Satwinder Singh

Act

Complaint/Dispute 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-00061592-001

15/02/2024

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

CA-00061592-003

15/02/2024

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

CA-00061592-004

15/02/2024

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

CA-00061592-006

15/02/2024

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

CA-00061592-007

15/02/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00062931-001

20/04/2024

The Complainant swore an affirmation at the outset at the hearing. Detailed submissions were received in the advance of hearing.

CA-00061592-002, CA-00061592-005 and CA-00061592-008 were withdrawn at the outset of the hearing.

Mr. Satwinder Singh appeared on behalf of the Respondent as Company Secretary and Supervisor. He swore an Affirmation at the outset of the hearing. No submission or documentary evidence was furnished.

Both parties availed of the opportunity to cross examine.

An application for an extension of time was made by the Complainant. The Respondent, when asked for his response, did not raise any objection.

CA-00061592-001 – Sunday Premium

It was the Complainant’s evidence that he worked every Sunday but did not receive an additional payment for his work. It was his evidence he worked a total of 92 Sundays with 24 within the consignable period.

The Complainant relied on the Labour Court determination in Viking Security Limited v. Tomas Valentin DWT 1489 where the Court measured compensation at approximately time plus one third for each hour worked on a Sunday.

CA-00061592-003 – Public Holiday

The Complainant explained that he worked on public holidays but again did not receive an additional payment. It was submitted that he worked on the following public holidays.

·        Saint Patrick's Day: 17 March 2023

·        Easter Monday: 10 April 2023

·        May Day: 01 May 2023

·        June Bank Holiday: 05 June 2023

CA-00061592-004 – Annual Leave

The Complainant gave evidence that he did not receive annual leave in 2020 or 2021; instead, he was told by Mr. Singh to carry over his annual leave for a longer period. From 25 October 2022 to 7 December 2022, the Complainant was on annual leave but did not receive payment while he was in Nepal. Bank statements for this period were presented in evidence by the Complainant.

It was submitted that the Complainant was owed annual leave of 984.34 hours based on the 30-day annual leave entitlement in the contract of employment.

CA-00061592-006 - Weekly Rest Period

Itwas the Complainant’s evidence that he rarely received a day off. It was the norm to work 7 days. He produced his own contemporaneous records of his working hours and days.

It was submitted that the Complainant worked consecutively on the following dates without a time off:

·        22/02/23 – 06/03/23: 13 days

·        08/03/23 – 25/04/23: 48 days

·        28/04/23 – 09/05/23: 12 days

·        11/05/23 – 22/05/23: 12 days

·        25/05/23 – 05/06/23: 12 days

·        07/06/23 – 13/06/23: 7 days

·        15/06/23- 03/07/23: 19 days

·        05/07/23- 23/07/23: 19 days

The Complainant relied upon Directive 93/104/EC of 23  November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. In Von Colson & Kamann v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891, the Court of Justice of the European Union made it clear that where such a right is infringed, the judicial redress provided should not only compensate for economic loss sustained but must provide a real deterrent against future infractions.

CA-00061592-007 – Maximum Working Week

It was the Complainant’s evidence that he worked on average 70 hours per week. Again he relied on his own contemporaneous records of his working hours.

The Compliant relied upon the Labour Court determination of Stablefield Limited v Ana Manciu (2019) DWT1924

CA-00062931-001  - Minimum Wage

Evidence was produced of the Complainant’s request for a Section 23 statement of his average hourly rate of pay which was sent to the registered business address of the Respondent on 16 February 2024. The Complainant further produced evidence of the registered letter being signed for at the Respondent’s address on 19 February 2024.

The following calculations were submitted by the Complainant:-

In terms of redress, it was submitted that  Section 26(1) of Act provides that where a complaint is upheld, the Adjudication Officer may award redress of arrears of  pay in respect of “the period to which the dispute relates.” The Complainant further relied upon the Labour Court determination in Sue Ryder Foundation Ireland Ltd v Maureen Meenagh MWD051 which was subsequently applied in A Trainee Solicitor vs Law Firm ADJ-00020327 in and upheld by the Labour Court in Imtiaz Ahmed Ranjha Sky Solicitors v Imtiaz Khan MWD212 and award the Complainant redress of arrears for the entire period to which the dispute relates to.

CA-00061592-001 – Sunday Premium

It was Ms Singh’s evidence that the Complainant was never scheduled for work on a Sunday as it was not his normal day of work. Instead he worked Tuesday to Saturday.  It was also submitted that the Complainant was paid a salary of €30,000 which included Sunday premium.

CA-00061592-003 – Public Holiday

Mr. Singh gave evidence that the Complainant did not work on public holiday as Monday was not part of his normal working week.  

CA-00061592-004 – Annual Leave

Mr. Singh gave evidence that the Complainant took annual leave in October 2022 but was unsure for how long. As there were no funds in the company account , the Complainant, by agreement, was paid in cash in the sum of €4,490 which was lodged into his bank account on 20 Mach 2023. While Mr. Singh submitted that he did not have the relevant records available on the day of the hearing , he paid the Complainant €566 from his personal account in February or March 2022.

CA-00061592-006 - Weekly Rest Period

It was Mr. Singh’s evidence that the Complainant did get weekly breaks. The records for these breaks were in the shop which he did not have access to.

CA-00061592-007 – Maximum Working Week

Mr Singh gave evidence that the Complainant worked a 39-hour working week as per his contract of employment. He denied that the Complainant worked 70 hours per week.

CA-00062931-001  - Minimum Wage

It was the Respondent’s evidence that the Complainant worked 39 hours per week and was paid a salary of €30,000 a year.

Preliminary Point

It is first necessary to decide on whether the Complainant meets the test for an extension of time.

The time limits for submitting claims to the Workplace Relations Commission are set out in 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.”

“(8) 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 period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (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 Labour Court has set out the test in Cementation Skanska v Carroll, DWT 38/2003 as follows;

“It is the Court's view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd.

In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’s 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 test draw heavily on the decision of the High Court inDonal O’Donnell and Catherine O’Donnell v Dun Laoghaire Corporation[1991] ILRM 30. Here Costello J. stated as follows:

“The phrase ‘good reasons’ is one of wide import which it would be futile to attempt to define precisely. However, in considering whether or not there are good reasons for extending the time I think it is clear that the test must be an objective one and the court should not extend the time merely because an aggrieved plaintiff believed that he or she was justified in delaying the institution of proceedings. What the plaintiff has to show (and I think the onus under O. 84 r. 21 is on the plaintiff) is that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford a justifiable excuse for the delay.”

The Complainant’s evidence was his immigration visa, employment and accommodation were all dependent on his employment with the Respondent which left him in a vulnerable position. He was also in the process of family reunification which further tied him to the Respondent. When his employment was terminated, the Complainant eventually sought advice from the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland in February 2024, and it was only upon advice was he in a position to submit his complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission. 

Having regard to all the particular circumstances of this complaint where the Complainant, who is Nepalese, and  provided credible evidence of his excessive working hours, the fact he lived and worked in rural area during the Covid19 pandemic and with a significant shortage of housing, his total dependency in terms of accommodation, employment and his visa was on the Respondent who took advantage of his situation, it is therefore accepted that there was reasonable cause to allow for an extension of time. It is also noted that the complaints were lodged the day after the Complainant’s assessment with the Migrant Rights Centre and there was no further delay.

It was also accepted that in order to comply with the Section 23 requirement of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000, additional time was required.

Finally, in arriving at the decision, the absence of any objection on the part of the Respondent has also been taking into account.

Consequently, where a Complaint Form was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 15 February 2024, the  cognisable period for the complaint under the Organisation of Time Act 1997 falls between 16 February 2023 – 15 February 2024 of which the Complainant worked 22 weeks and 4 days from 15 February 2023 until 15 August 2023, the date his employment ended.

CA-00062931-001  - Minimum Wage

It is first necessary to consider the complaint under the minimum wage legislation as it has the potential for an impact on redress under the heads of complaint, if well founded.

The  Act provides for an employee’s entitlement to payment not less than the minimum wage:-

8.—(1) For the purpose of determining under this Act whether an employee is being paid not less than the minimum hourly rate of pay to which he or she is entitled in accordance with this Act, but subject to section 9 , “working hours”, in relation to an employee in a pay reference period, means—

(a) the hours (including a part of an hour) of work of the employee as determined in accordance with—

(i) his or her contract of employment,

(ii) any collective agreement that relates to the employee,

(iii) any Registered Employment Agreement that relates to the employee,

(iv) any Employment Regulation Order that relates to the employee,

(v) any statement provided by the employee's employer to the employee in accordance with section 3 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 ,

(vi) any notification by the employee's employer to the employee under section 17 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 ,

(vii) section 18 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 , or

(viii) any other agreement made between the employee and his or her employer or their representatives that includes a provision in relation to hours of work,

or

(b) the total hours during which the employee carries out or performs the activities of his or her work at the employee's place of employment or is required by his or her employer to be available for work there and is paid as if the employee is carrying out or performing the activities of his or her work,

whichever, in any case, is the greater number of hours of work

(2) “Working hours” under this section shall include-

(a) overtime,

(b) time spent travelling on official business, and

(c) time spent on training or on a training course or course of study authorised by the employer, within the workplace or elsewhere, during normal working hours,

but shall not include—

(i) time spent absent from work on annual leave, sick leave, protective leave, adoptive leave, parental leave, carer’s leave under the Carer’s Leave Act, 2001, while laid-off, on strike or on ‘lock-out’, or time for which the employee is paid in lieu of notice, or,

(ii) time spent absent from work on annual leave, sick leave, protective leave, adoptive leave, parental leave, while laid-off, on strike or on “lock-out”, or time for which the employee is paid in lieu of notice, or

(iii) time spent on travelling between an employee's place of residence and place of work and back.”

It is accepted that the Complainant sought a statement of his average hourly wage pursuant to Section 23(1) of the Act, but no such statement was forthcoming from the Respondent.  At the hearing no credible evidence was presented by the Respondent either, instead Mr. Singh simply denied the complaint.

The detailed timesheets presented in evidence are accepted in their entirety. Very helpfully the Complainant’s representatives summarised the hours into tables which have been cross checked and are deemed to be an accurate reflection of the hours worked and relating minimum wage for the consignable period.

The evidence that he worked from between 2pm to midnight on a daily basis without weekly rest breaks is accepted. I am satisfied , on the basis of evidence presented, that a working week of at least 70 hours was the regular reality for the Complainant.

Pay Reference Period for Calculation of Redress

The National Minimum Wage Act 2000 falls under the Schedule 5 of Workplace Relation Act 2015. Section 41 (7) (d) of the 2015 Act states:-

“(d) in the case of a dispute relating to the entitlement of an employee under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 , it has been referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on-

(i) the date on which the employee obtains a statement of his or her average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period in accordance with section 23 of that Act,

(ii) in circumstances where that statement is not provided having been requested by the employee to be provided to him or her, the day after the date of expiration of the time within which that statement was required to be provided by the employer in accordance with that section,”

Section 23 (1) of the 2000 Act defines the pay reference period as being the 12 months immediately preceding the request for the statement:-

“23.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), an employee may request from his or her employer a written statement of the employee's average hourly rate of pay for any pay reference period (other than the employee's current pay reference period) falling within the 12 month period immediately preceding the request.”

Imtiaz Ahmed Ranjha Sky Solicitors v Imtiaz Khan MWD212 has been considered carefully in terms of the Complainant’s submission that the full period of the breach, i.e. the date of commencement on 20 October 2020. However, the Labour Court did not address the pay reference period for the calculation of redress pursuant to Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act. I am bound by the legislation and consequently, I find the pay reference period for the purposes of redress being the 12-month period from 15 February 2023 – 16 February 2024, being the date the Complainant requested the Section 23 statement from the Respondent. 

Where is has been found the  Complainant worked a normal working week of 70 hours for a period of 29 weeks during the reference period and earned a weekly wage of €576.92 which equated to the hourly wage of €8.24. This was a significant shortfall of on the minimum hourly wage of €11.30 in 2023.

The Complainant’s contract of employment which specifies an annual salary of €30,000 has also been considered. However, it is found in light of the grossly excessive hours worked by the Complainant supported by the strength of the documentary evidence compared to the maximum weekly working hours of 48 hours, it cannot be concluded that the sum of €30,000 was sufficient to discharge the Respondent’s obligations under the 2000 Act.

Consequently, I find his complaint is well founded.

CA-00061592-001 – Sunday Premium

Section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997:-

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”

Again, based on the credible evidence presented by the Complainant, it is accepted that Sunday was a normal working day for him. In arriving at this finding , I have taken into consideration the lack of any documentary evidence presented by the Respondent despite its obligation to maintain records.

There is no provision or reference to a Sunday Premium in the contract of employment. It simply states the annual wage.

Having regard to all the evidence presented, I find the complaint is well founded on the balance of probabilities.

The Complainant sought 1/3 of the hourly rate on his contract of employment of €4.44 as a Sunday Premium in line with the Labour Court determination in Viking Security Limited. The later determination of Labour Court in Chicken and Chips Limited t/a Chicken Hut and Malinowski  DWT 159 provided for a 33% premium which was considered “reasonable in the sector”, the same sector as the Complainant’s case.

CA-00061592-003 – Public Holiday

Section 21 of the Act provides:

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.

The Complainant’s evidence of the public holidays he worked is very clear. There was no evidence from the Respondent to the contrary. The onus is on the Respondent to maintain records of working hours pursuant to Section 25 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. It was put to the Respondent if the Complainant was paid for public holidays worked if the holiday fell on another day other than a Monday. Mr Singh was unable to answer this question other than stating the restaurant closed on Christmas Day.

It is also noted the Complainant’s contract provides for an annual salary of €30,000. The contract provides for 30 days annual leave in addition to public holidays at clause 8. There is no further reference to public holidays in the contract of employment. While it is accepted the Complainant received a consistent weekly wage of €576.92 , this fell short of the national minimum wage. Consequently, I find the Complainant was not compensated in accordance with Section 21 of the Act for working on four public holidays.

On the balance of probabilities, I find the complaint is well founded. 

CA-00061592-004 – Annual Leave

Section 19 of the Act provides for the entitlement for annual leave:-

“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.”

The contract of employment at clause 8 provides for additional annual leave days:

“Your holiday entitlement is 30 days plus public holidays for each holiday year. The Employer’s holiday year runs from the first of January until the 31st of December inclusive.

Requests for holidays must be agreed in advance and with at least two  weeks’ notice.

Upon termination of your employment you will be required to repay to the  Employer pay received for holidays taken in excess of your basic holiday  entitlement. Any sums due may be deducted from any money owing to  you.”

The undisputed evidence that the Complainant took his first period of annual leave between October and December 2022. However, the consignable period for the purposes of this complaint is from 15 February 2023 – 16 February 2024.

Consequently, the Complainant was entitled to 22 annual leave days for the consignable period.

On the balance of probabilities I find the complaint is well founded.

CA-00061592-006 - Weekly Rest Period

13.—(1) In this section “daily rest period” means a rest period referred to in section 11.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), an employee shall, in each period of 7 days, be granted a rest period of at least 24 consecutive hours; subject to subsections (4) and (6), the time at which that rest period commences shall be such that that period is immediately preceded by a daily rest period Organisation of Working Time [1997}.

(3) An employer may, in lieu of granting to an employee in any period of 7 days the first-mentioned rest period in subsection (2), grant to him or her, in the next following period of 7 days, 2 rest periods each of which shall be a period of at least 24 consecutive hours and, subject to subsections (4) and (6)—

(a) if the rest periods so granted are consecutive, the time at which the first of those periods commences shall be such that that period is immediately preceded by a daily rest period, and

(b) if the rest periods so granted are not consecutive, the time at which each of those periods commences shall be such that each of them is immediately preceded by a daily rest period.

I do not accept the Respondent’s evidence that the Complainant worked Tuesday to Saturday with two days off a week. Again there was no documentary evidence either in the form of roasters or clocking times were presented to support this claim.

I accepted the credible evidence of the Complainant and find that he was required to work 7 days without the required weekly rest period of at least 24 consecutive hours.

Consequently, I find the complaint is well founded.

CA-00061592-007 – Maximum Working Week

Section 15 of the Act provides:

“15.—(1) An employer shall not permit an employee to work, in each period of 7 days, more than an average of 48 hours, that is to say an average of 48 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a “reference period ”) that does not exceed—

(a) 4 months, or

(b) 6 months—

(i) in the case of an employee employed in an activity referred to in paragraph 2, point 2.1. of Article 17 of the Council Directive, or

(ii) where due to any matter referred to in section 5, it would not be practicable (if a reference period not exceeding 4 months were to apply in relation to the employee) for the employer to comply with this subsection,

or

(c) such length of time as, in the case of an employee employed in an activity mentioned in subsection (5), is specified in a collective agreement referred to in that subsection.”

I do not accept the Respondent’s evidence that the Complainant worked Tuesday to Saturday with two days off a week. Again there was no documentary evidence either in the form of roasters or clocking times were presented by the Respondent in support of its claim.  

I accepted the credible evidence of the Complainant and find that he was required to work grossly in excess of 48 hours a week. I find that his normal working week was regularly 70 hours per week.

Consequently, I find the complaint well founded.

CA-00062931-001  - Minimum Wage

Ifind the Complainant’s claim pursuant to the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 for underpayment to be well founded.

Section 26 (2) of the 2000 Act (as amended by the Workplace  Relations Act 2015) provides for the modes of redress :-

“26. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer in relation to a dispute in respect of the entitlements of an employee under this Act referred to the adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 may contain—

(a) a direction to the employer to pay to the employee—

(i) an award of arrears, being the difference between any amount paid or allowed by the employer to the employee for pay and the minimum amount the employee was entitled to be paid or allowed in accordance with this Act in respect of the period to which the dispute relates, and

(ii) reasonable expenses of the employee in connection with the dispute,

(b) a requirement that the employer rectify, within a specified time (not being later than 42 days after the date the decision is communicated to the employer) or in a specified manner, any matter, including the payment of any amount, in respect of which the employer is in contravention of this Act,

both such direction and such requirement, as the adjudication officer considers appropriate.”

In the circumstances where the Complainant is no longer an employee of the Respondent, Section 26 (2) (a) (i) and (ii) of the 2000 Act are the most appropriate redress.

It has been found that the Complainant worked a normal working week of 70 hours for a period of 22.5 weeks during the reference period from 15 February 2023 – 16 February 2024. It has been found that the Complainant  earned a weekly wage of €576.92 which equated to the hourly wage of €8.24. This was a significant shortfall of €2.06 per hour on the minimum hourly wage of €11.30 in 2023 which equates €3,244.50.

I am awarding the Complainant the sum of €3,244.50 in arrears being the difference between any amount paid by the Respondent to the Complainant and the minimum wage for the 12-month period from 15 February 2023 – 16 February 2024.

I am further awarding the Complainant €1,000 towards reasonable expenses incurred in connection with this dispute.

CA-00061592-001 – Sunday Premium

Section 27 (3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 provides for redress:-

“A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of a relevant provision shall do one or more of the following, namely:

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

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

(c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount

(if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment.”

From review of the Complainant’s time sheets, I find he worked 23 Sundays, 10 hours per day, in the consignable period from 6 February 2023 – 15 February 2024. Following the Labour Court’s determination in the Chicken and Chips Limited t/a Chicken Hut and Malinowski, where the Complainant worked in a similar industry, I am awarding the Complainant compensation in the sum of €1,633.39 for the breach of the 1997 Act. The award is based on €4.93 being a premium of 33% of the intended hourly rate of €14.79 over a normal working day of 10 hours for the 23 Sundays worked together with an additional sum for the economic loss suffered by the Complainant.

CA-00061592-003 – Public Holiday

Applying section 27 (3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 I award the Complainant compensation in the sum of €562 having regard for hourly rate and normal working hours together with an additional sum for the economic loss suffered by the Complainant.

CA-00061592-004 – Annual Leave

Applying section 27 (3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 I award the Complainant compensation in the sum of €4,538.80 having regard for daily rate of €147.90 together with an additional sum for the economic loss suffered by the Complainant.

CA-00061592-006 - Weekly Rest Period

Section 27 (3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 provides for redress where a complaint is well founded.

Having regard for the excessive hours of work over a consistent 7 day period together, I award the Complainant compensation in the sum of €6,655.50 which is equivalent to an extra day’s payment for each of the additional 24 hour periods each week during the consignable period he worked at the demand of his employer.

CA-00061592-007 – Maximum Working Week

Section 27 (3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 provides for redress where a complaint is well founded.

Having regard for all the circumstances and in particular where the Complainant has been compensated for the Respondent’s failure to discharge its legal obligation under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000, I am awarding the Complainant compensation in the sum of €5,496.75 being the difference between the minimum wage of €11.30 and the contractual rate of €14,79 which he ought to have been paid for each of the hours he worked in the consignable period.

Minimum Wage – Annual Leave – Excessive Working Hours – Public Holidays