ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054339

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Aodhán O'Ceallaigh	Gaelachas Teoranta

Representatives

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000	CA-00066259-001	25/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00066259-002	25/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00066259-004	25/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00066259-005	25/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00066259-006	25/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00066259-008	25/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00066259-009	25/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00066259-010	25/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00066259-011	25/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00066259-012	25/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00066259-013	25/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00066259-014	25/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00066259-015	25/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00066259-016	25/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00066259-017	25/09/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/04/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens

Procedure:

On 25 September 2024 the Mr O’Ceallaigh (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) referred 15 complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission as outlined above. In accordance with Section 21 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, a hearing was held on 16 April 2025, at which time I enquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me, any evidence relevant to the complaints. Both parties provided submissions in advance of the hearing.

This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous provisions) Act 2020 and SI359/2020, which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski V Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24, the parties were informed in advance that the hearing would normally be in public, testimony under oath or affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. At the adjudication hearing, the parties were advised that in accordance with Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021, hearings before the WRC are now held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised. The parties are named in the headings of the decision, the terms Complainant and Respondent are used hereinafter to describe the parties.

The parties were also advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021, grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation, the acquired affirmation/oath was administered to all those who gave testimony and the legal perils of committing perjury were explained to all parties. Both parties were offered and availed of the opportunity to cross examine the evidence.

The Complainant attended the hearing and was unrepresented. Mr. O Cathain attended on behalf of Gaelachas Teoranta (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent).

Background:

The Complainant was an employee with the Respondent from 28 August 2022 until the termination of his employment in June 2024 due to closure of the facility. He alleged that he was paid less than the minimum wage, that he did not receive compensation for working on a Sunday, that he did not receive his paid holiday/annual leave entitlement, that he did not receive his public holiday entitlement. He also alleged that he was paid less than the amount due to him on 19 June 2024, that he did not receive his daily rest periods, that he did not get breaks, that he was required to work more than the maximum permitted number of hours, that he had to work excessive night hours, that he did not receive a statement in writing of his Terms of Employment and that he was not notified in writing of changes to his Terms of Employment and that he was not provided with training in accordance with the Terms of Employment (Information) Act.

The Respondent provided boarding services for students of an Irish speaking primary and secondary school. It is a Friendly Society run by a Board of Governors. It was the Respondent’s position that it did not have adequate records to address the complaints.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

General background:

The Complainant submitted that the Friendly Society of The Respondentwas set up in 1944 providing boarding services for students of Coláiste An Phiarsaigh (Secondary) and Scoil Na nÓg (primary 5th, 6th 7th classes) Irish medium schools. He submitted that this was a Friendly Society run by a Board of Governors and he confirmed that Mr O’Catháin had been the Acting Chair for quite some time. He confirmed that Mr O’Catháin was a qualified Solicitor and he stated that the Board appoints/instructs professional service individuals and companies to act on its behalf.

The Complainant submitted that Ms A was in the position of Secretary to the Board since 1973. He submitted that he understood that Ms A had been an employee prior to that since around the time of its setup in 1958. The Complainant outlined Ms A’s role as dealing with staff and administrative issues on behalf of the Board. He stated by 2024 Ms A had been in post for many years (circa 60 years) and that his preferred form of communication was oral. The Complainant stated that he seldom responded to emails and needed reminding and assistance, yet he always had the best interests of students at heart. The Complainant confirmed that Ms A reported to the Board and for the Respondent to now suggest that Ms A acted without instruction, or without the knowledge of the Board of Trustees was refuted. He submitted that from February 2024, Ms A was assisted by Mr B, who reported to the Board of Trustees.

The Complainant submitted that up until 2022 the role of Feitheoir (supervisor) was undertaken by trainee teachers on placement from third level institutions and that this arrangement ceased in Summer 2022. He submitted that in August 2022 past pupils of Coláiste An Phiarsaigh were asked to undertake these duties.

The Complainant submitted that from the outset of his employment he consistently requested to be paid in line with legislative requirements, requested the required and appropriate staffing so that the supervisors could take appropriate breaks and provide appropriate supervision to the children in their care. He submitted that he asked for payslips and a Contract of Employment. He further stated that in hindsight he now knows that he should have put all of these requests in writing, but that in the context that Ms A’s preferred communication was oral, that was how matters were dealt with.

The Complainant stated that there were ongoing issues with pay, cover and terms and conditions, and the general running of boarding house services for all supervisors. He submitted that on 2 February 2024, he met with Mr. B (representing the Board of The Respondent) to discuss the ongoing issues with the running of the boarding house. He stated that there was a specific heading for pay to supervisors in the letter which stated that they were not paid holiday pay despite asking, were not being paid correctly every week, were not receiving payslips and had issues with pay owed to them. The Complainant provided a copy of the correspondence relating to that discussion. He submitted that the letter also stated that the staff did not receive a Contract of Employment despite asking for one and that there was no clear guideline with regard to their duties and that they were left to deal with all issues as they escalated without support or guidance.

The Complainant stated that staffing issues were also raised at that time but that the supervisors were left to fill in all shifts because there were not enough staff on the roster. He submitted that he could not take breaks, as children could not be left unattended. The Complainant stated that he, as Head Supervisor brought those issues to Mr B’s attention and was under the impression that they were being then presented to the Board of The Respondent to be resolved.

The Complainant submitted that a decision to suspend boarding services was made but was not communicated to him by The Respondent and that he received this information from the Principal of Colaiste an Phiarsaigh on the evening of 10 April 2024. He stated that the principal held no direct or indirect authority in relation to him as Head Supervisor of the Boarding House and that this information should have been communicated to him by his employer.

Additionally, he stated that the students had been formally advised by their school Principal that day and that a letter drafted and signed by Mr O’Catháin, as Chair of the Board of Trustees, was issued to the parents on that day also. He provided a copy of that letter. The Complainant stated that he wrote to Mr O’Catháin by email on 4 June 2024 and referred to the failure of the Board to notify him as a staff member and he provided a copy of that correspondence.

The Complainant submitted that on learning that the boarding facilities were to cease, and reflecting on how the information had reached him, he finally took a decision to write formally requesting that his pay and Terms and Conditions be corrected. He stated that he did not take this decision lightly, that it was a last resort, and that he had put a lot of time and effort into checking all of the information and calculations to aid The Respondent in settling matters. He submitted that this however yielded no results and that as a consequence he wrote on three more occasions requesting an update or an answer. He stated that finally on 23 September 2024 he submitted his complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission, and he informed Mr O’Catháin and The Respondent by email of his intention in that regard.

Boarding House Working Hours:

The Complainant submitted that as Head Supervisor, it was his responsibility to fill in for shifts or be available if problems arose to deal with them and assist other supervisors with issues. This included being available to take calls from parents, supervisors, School Principals etc, during all non-working hours. He submitted that during non-school hours, children had to be supervised at all times (15:30pm – 09:15am next day, equal to a total of 17 hours and 15 minutes). The boarding house was open from 6pm on Sunday evening until 3:30pm on the following Friday afternoon. Children were never to be left unattended. Children ranged in age from 11 to 18 years. He stated that these hours were not decided upon by the Supervisors, that this was a system that was set up by The Respondent.

The Complainant further submitted that from 3:30pm to 8pm this were around 75 children overall (including day boarders) and a total of 3-4 supervisors on duty. He submitted that from 8pm to 09:15am this would be 23-27 children in the girl’s dormitories, spread across two floors, with primary school children on one floor and secondary school children on another. He stated that two supervisors were rostered on duty and that children were never to be left unattended. He submitted that in those circumstances, the supervisors did not receive a break as this were not enough supervisors to cover the ratio of children to supervisors. He stated that he sent an email to the Respondent (Ms A) requesting a third supervisor to be put on duty to relieve the stress and workload but that despite numerous verbal requests, his request remained unanswered.

The Complainant submitted that he felt a burden of responsibility to the children in his care, especially the primary school children who required a level of emotional support and direction, with social and educational aspects during their time in Scoil Na nÓg. He stated that nobody was dealing with the issues and despite numerous requests no solution was forthcoming from the Board.

CA-00066259-001: (Minimum Wage)

In his complaint form, the Complainant confirmed that he was paid approximately €6.23 per hour for the night shift. For Sundays/bank holidays, between 6pm and 09:15am, a period of 15 hours and 15 minutes, he received €95, which equated to €6.23 per hour. He further confirmed that the night shift, Monday to Thursday from 8pm to 09:15am, a period of 13 hours and 15 minutes, he was paid the amount of €85 which equated to €6.42 per hour.

The Complainant outlined that during the time he worked for The Respondent, he requested on numerous occasions that his compensation be paid in line with minimum wage requirements. He confirmed that on 4 June 2024 he wrote to the employer regarding his pay and this correspondence was acknowledged on 7 June. When he did not receive a substantial response he wrote again on 14 June 2024 and 16 July 2024. The Complainant confirmed that he received a response to either correspondence. He noted that he wrote again on 24 July and again received no response. He submitted that 13 weeks had passed and that he had received no update on the progress of his claim. He submitted that his work involved supervising homework and activities and sleeping in the boarding house where he would be available during the night to deal with sick children or any events that presented during his shift.

In his submission the Complainant outlined that from the outset of his employment he consistently requested to be paid in line with legislative requirements, i.e. the minimum wage. He submitted that he was 19 years old when he commenced employment in 2022 and as such, rates should have been increased in line with age and prevailing updated legislative requirements. He confirmed that he asked for payslips and a Contract of Employment. He submitted that in hindsight he now knew that he should have put all of these requests in writing.

He submitted that he rejected that the Board was unaware of these requests or their obligations regarding rates of pay as Ms A reported directly to the Board. He submitted that the Board is required to act within the law, that it was not in the gift of The Respondent to decide to pay less than the minimum rate set. He submitted that the Board employs accountants, HR professionals and auditors, who also must act within the law, and he confirmed that the Acting Chair of the Board, Mr O’Catháin, was a trained Solicitor. The Complainant submitted that The Respondent had not dealt with the claims in his letter, sent via email on 4th June 2024.

CA-00066259-002: (Sunday Pay)

In his complaint form, the Complainant stated that he worked a night shift on Sundays and bank holidays from 6pm to 09:15am, a total of 15 hours and 15 minutes and that for that period he was paid an amount of €95 which equated to €6.23 per hour. He confirmed that when he worked a night shift from Monday to Thursday, from 8pm to 09:15am, a total period of 13 hours and 15 minutes, he received a total amount of €85 which equated to €6.42 per hour. He stated that this demonstrated that he received a lower hourly rate of pay on a Sunday than on a weekday.

In his submission the Complainant outlined that he rejected that the Board was unaware of the requirement to pay in line with legislative requirements, he stated that Ms A reported to the Board and that the Board was required to act within the law and that it was not within their gift to decide to pay less than the minimum wage set for Sunday pay. He confirmed that the Board employed accounts, HR professionals and auditors who also must act within the law.

The Complainant confirmed that he had not received Sunday pay in accordance with legislative requirements during the course of his employment and that he had in fact been paid an hourly rate on Sunday which was less than that paid on a weekday. He confirmed that his hourly rate for a Sunday was €6.23 per hour and his weekday hourly rate was €6.42 per hour. He stated that he had outlined this in his email of 4 June to the Respondent and they had not dealt with his claims.

CA-00066259-004: (Payment of Wages)

The Complainant contended that his employer had not paid his or had paid his less than the amount due to his and that he should have received payment was 19 June 2024. He confirmed that the monetary value of wages not paid was €10,930.06 and he stated that the monetary value of holiday pay not received was €686.70. In his complaint form he confirmed that the calculation was based on the national minimum wage due and that it excluded calculation for public holiday pay.

In his submission the Complainant stated that he rejected that the Board was unaware of the obligation to pay in accordance with legislative requirements. He confirmed that Mrs A reported to the Board and the Board is required to act within the law. He further submitted that the Board employed accountants and auditors who must also act within the law.

The Complainant submitted that he constantly requested that he be remunerated correctly, and he further refuted that the Board was unaware of its obligation in this regard. He stated that the matters had been brought to attention on 2 February 2024 by him on behalf of all of the supervisors. He confirmed that it was inaccurate to suggest that no records existed, and he provided a breakdown of his estimated calculations based on his age.

The Complainant confirmed that he set out the full detail of this in his correspondence of 4 June 2024 to the Respondent.

At hearing, following discussion on this complaint the Complaint confirmed that he was withdrawing the complaint on the basis that the issues contained therein were covered by complaints made under the Minimum Wage Act and under the Organisation of Working Time Act. He confirmed that he would confirm the withdrawal in writing to the WRC post hearing.

CA-00066259-005: (Holiday Pay)

The Complainant alleged that he did not receive his paid holiday/annual leave entitlements. In his Complainant form he outlined that he was not paid the total amount of holiday pay. He confirmed that during the time he worked for the Respondent he requested on numerous occasions that his compensation be paid in line with holiday pay requirements.

On 4 June 2024 he wrote to his employer regarding his pay. On 24 June he received confirmation that that correspondence had been received. On 14 June 2024 he wrote again to the Respondent but received no response. He wrote again on 10 July 2024, and he received a response on the same date saying that he would get a response in due course. The Complainant outlined that 14 weeks had passed and he had received no update on the progress of his claim. The Complainant submitted that based on his calculations of hours worked from the rosters and revenue records, he estimated that he was owed the total sum of €2012.38. He confirmed that as he had never received a payslip, he had based his calculations from rosters and revenue records.

In his submission the Complainant confirmed his position as set out in the complaint form. He further confirmed that he rejected that the Board was unaware of the requirement to pay holiday pay in line with legislation. He submitted that Ms A reported to the Board and that the Board was required to act within the law and that it was not in the gift of the Respondent to decide to withhold holiday pay owing. He submitted that the Board employed accountants and auditors who were also obliged to act within the law.

The Complainant stated that he refuted that the Board was unaware of the circumstances of this complaint. He stated that in his email of 2 February 2024, on behalf of the supervisors, and at a meeting earlier that day he had addressed this issue. The Complainant confirmed that he had received holiday pay up to the end of 2023 but that despite numerous request he did not receive holiday pay for 2024.

He stated that based on his calculations of hours worked from roster records and revenue records (as he did not receive payslips), he estimated that he was owed the sum total of €2686.70 and that he set out the detail of that in his email to the Respondent, of 4 June 2024. He confirmed again that the Respondent had not dealt with the claims set out in his email of that date.

CA-00066259-006: (Public Holidays)

The Complainant contended that he had not received his public holiday entitlement. He submitted that this were 18 public holidays over the course of his employment and that each of these shifts were 14.25 hours in duration. He confirmed that he received €6.32 per hour for 14.25-hour shift and that he was not compensated in pay or hours worked for those shifts. He stated that based on his age and the minimum wage at the time, he calculated that he was owed the sum of €2,393.64 in relation to public holiday pay due to his.

In his submission, the Complainant submitted that he rejected that the Board was unaware of its obligation to pay public holiday rates of pay. He submitted that Ms A reported to the Board and the Board is required to act within the law and that it was not in the gift of the Respondent to decide to withhold public holiday pay. He submitted that the Board employed accountants, HR professionals and auditors who were also obliged to act within the law.

The Complainant submitted that this were 18 public holidays over the course of his employment. He stated that each of these shifts was 14.25 hours and that he received €6.32 per hour. He stated that he was not compensated in either pay or hours of work for those shifts and that based on his age and the minimum wage at the time, he calculated that the public holiday amount owing to his was €2,393.64. He confirmed that he had set out the full detail of the calculation in his letter to the Respondent on 4 June 2024.

The Complainant further submitted that he refuted that the Board was unaware of this issue, and he drew attention to the email of 7 February 2024 which he sent on behalf of the supervisors, addressing this issue to a representative of the Board. He further submitted that to suggest that no records exist was inaccurate and he confirmed that the Respondent had not dealt with his claim as set out in his email of 4 June 2024.

CA-0066259-008: (Daily Rest Periods)

The Complainant contended that he did not get daily rest periods. In his complaint form he confirmed that his shift patterns ranged from 3.30 pm until 9.15 am the following morning and that he was often required to attend for work again on that same day at 3.30 pm, having worked 17.25 consecutive hours.

In his submission the Complainant submitted that he rejected that the Board was unaware of its obligation to staff in relation to rest periods. He stated that Ms A reported to the Board and the Board is required to act within the law, ie that it was not within the gift of the Respondent to decide to act beyond the law. The Complainant submitted that the Board employed a HR specialist who was also obliged to act within the law and that Mr O’Catháin was a qualified Solicitor and was surely knowledgeable about such matters. The Complainant again set out his various shift arrangements and rest periods as previously outlined in his complaint form.

The Complainant also submitted that the supervisors did not schedule their own hours, that rosters were set with reference to the requirement to have supervision in place for children. He submitted that this wasn’t enough staff to cover the work, that he had requested more staff on a regular basis but that the matter went unaddressed. He provided a copy of an email of 18 March 2024 where he brought this matter to attention. He stated that children could not be left unattended, that he took his role seriously and would never leave children alone or unattended at any time. He submitted that this were numerous entries in the Incident Record Book and the digital shared folder which were all time and date stamped to support his contention.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent had set up a rostering system and that the Respondent suggestion that supervisors did not have to work in accordance with rostering system was in his view amusing. He confirmed again that the children could not be left unattended and that had this been more staff, start and finish times could have been staggered. However, he stated that as things stood, this was not possible and therefore the only other alternative would have been to leave children unsupervised, and he posed the question that the Respondent suggestion was that this was what should have occurred.

The Complainant submitted that the supervisors were not casual staff as per the definition set out in law, that records showed that he worked an average of 40 hours per week during term time and he provided a copy of a roster to verify that position. He also confirmed that in his view, to suggest that no records existed, was totally inaccurate and he confirmed that the Respondent had not dealt with his claims as set out in his email of 4 June 2024.

CA-00066259-009: (Breaks)

The Complainant contended that he did not get breaks. The Complainant confirmed that he worked shifts ranging from 13.25 hours to 17.45 hours and that he never received a break as children could not be left unsupervised or alone at any time. In his submission the Complainant confirmed the duration of his shifts, and he rejected that the Board was unaware of its obligations to staff in relation to working hours. He submitted that Ms. A reported to the Board and that the Board employed HR specialists who would understand the legal requirements. He also noted the Chairperson’s legal qualifications. In addition, the Complainant rejected the Respondent position that it did not have records and noted that the roster book was kept in the office.

The Complainant further submitted that this were not enough staff rostered on to facilitate breaks while maintaining adequate supervision of the children in their care.

CA-00066259-010: (Working in excess of maximum permitted hrs)

The Complainant contended that he was required to work more than the maximum permitted number of hours per week. In his complaint form he stated that during the period of 28 August 2022 and 21 June 2024 he worked an average of 50.75 hours per week, which included mostly night shifts.

In his submission the Complainant outlined that he shifts were between 13.25 and 17.45 hoursin duration and he provided details of his shift patterns as follows:

Sunday/Bank holiday 6 pm to 9.15 am (15 hrs and 15 mins) [Night Shift]

Weekday 8 pm to 9.15 am (13 hrs and 15 mins) [Night Shift]

Weekday 5.30 pm to 8 pm {day time shift]

He stated that he often worked 17.45 hours consecutively, partially overnight. He rejected that the Board was unaware of its obligations to staff in relation to working hours. He submitted that Ms. A reported to the Board and that the Board employed HR specialists who would understand the legal requirements. He also noted the Chairperson’s legal qualifications. In addition, the Complainant rejected the Respondent position that it did not have records and noted that the roster book was kept in the office.

The Complainant further submitted that this were not enough staff rostered on to facilitate breaks while maintaining adequate supervision of the children in their care.

CA-00066259-011 (Holiday Pay)

The Complainant contended that he did not receive his paid holiday/annual leave entitlement. In his complaint form he stated that from the commencement of his employment on 28 August 2022 he did not receive annual leave, or the total amount of holiday pay owed to his.

At hearing, following discussion on this complaint the Complaint confirmed that he was withdrawing the complaint on the basis that it was a duplicate of CA-00662579-005. He confirmed that he would confirm the withdrawal in writing to the WRC post hearing.

CA-00066259-012 (Public Holidays)

The Complainant contended that he did not receive his public holiday entitlement.

In his complaint form he stated that this were 18 public holidays over the course of his employment, that these shifts were 15.25 hours in duration and that he was paid a total of €95 for the shift (equating to €6.23 per hour). He stated that he was not compensated in pay or hours of work for those shifts.

CA-00066259-013: (Excessive Night Hours)

The Complainant contended that he was required to work excessive night hours. In his complaint form he stated that he worked the following shift patterns:

Sunday/Bank holiday 6 pm to 9.15 am (15 hrs and 15 mins) [Night Shift]

Weekday 8 pm to 9.15 am (13 hrs and 15 mins) [Night Shift]

Weekday 5.30 pm to 8 pm {day time shift]

He stated that on average he worked 3 nights per week, including Sunday nights and that the shifts ranged between 13.25 hours and 15.25 hours in duration

CA-00066259-014: (Statement of Terms & Conditions)

The Complainant contended that he did not receive a statement in writing of his terms of employment since the commencement of his employment on 28 August 2022. He stated that he made numerous requests but that he never received a statement or a contract of employment.

CA-00066259-015: (Written Notification of Change to T&C’s)

The Complainant contended that he was not notified in writing of a change to his terms of employment.

In his complaint form he stated that in September 2023 his Sunday night shift start time was changed from 7 pm to 6 pm and that he was not notified in writing of that change. He also stated that he was not notified orally of the change, that it merely appeared on the roster.

CA-00066259-016 (Statement of Terms & Conditions)

The Complainant contended that he did not receive a statement in writing of his terms of employment since the commencement of his employment on 28 august 2022. He stated that he made numerous requests but that he never received a statement or a contract of employment.

At hearing, following discussion on this complaint the Complaint confirmed that he was withdrawing the complaint on the basis that it was a duplicate of CA-00662579-014. He confirmed that he would confirm the withdrawal in writing to the WRC post hearing.

CA-00066259-017 (Terms of Employment)

The Complainant contended that his employer had not provided training to him free of cost in contravention of the Act or that this training was not counted as working time and should have taken place within working hours.

In his complaint form, he stated that he was not provided with training upon joining the organisation, that there was no training program or specific set of standards that he was to follow. He further stated that the staff already in employment at the time he commenced employment did not have the ability to train him as there were not enough staff to make this possible.

At hearing, following discussion on this complaint the Complaint confirmed that he was withdrawing the complaint on the basis that it was submitted in error. He confirmed that he would confirm the withdrawal in writing to the WRC post hearing.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent submitted that the boarding house was managed by Ms A until May 2024 when the decision was made to suspend boarding services in the schools. The Respondent submitted that unfortunately Ms A was not in a position to assist the Respondent further in responding to these complaints on account of ill health.

The Respondent submitted that as part of the process after the decision was made to suspend boarding services, the Respondent engaged the services of the Society’s accountants and HR Consultants, and the normal redundancy protocols were followed as appropriate. The Respondent submitted that employment information was gathered and analysed and those entitled to receive redundancy received same. The Respondent submitted that the Board was somewhat disappointed to have received these complaints as full consideration was given to all who were involved in the provision of boarding services, however, the Respondent stated that it would set out its position in relation to each of the complaints below.

CA-00066259-001(Minimum Wage)

The Respondent submitted that the rates of pay were agreed by the Complainant with Ms A and that the Board of the Respondent was not made aware of any issues in relation to pay arrangements for boarding. The Respondent submitted that it was not aware of arrangements made directly between the Complainant and Ms A, nor of any complaint made by the Complainant during his employment regarding pay and conditions.

The Respondent stated that it could not find any correspondence, either email or otherwise, regarding the issue. The Respondent stated that it had responded to the Complainant on receipt of the initial complaint and advised that it was looking into the matter. The Respondent stated that this took some time on account of school closures, holidays and Ms A’s ill health. The Respondent stated that pay slips were forwarded to the Complainant by the Respondent when this error was brought to the attention of the Board by the Complainant.

CA-00066259-002: (Sunday Pay)

The Respondent submitted that all terms were agreed by the complainant with Ms. A. The Board of The Respondent was not made aware of any issue relating to the complainants Contract. The Board of The Respondent was not aware of the arrangements made directly between the complainant and Ms. A, nor of any complaint made by the complainant during his time with The Respondent regarding his employment. The Board of The Respondent could not find any correspondence (email or otherwise) regarding this issue.

The Board of The Respondent responded to the complainant on receipt of the initial complaint and advised that it was looking into the matter. This took some time on account of school closure, holidays and Ms. A’s ill-health. Payslips were forwarded to the complainant by The Respondent when this error was brought to the attention the Board by the complainant

CA-00066259-004: (Payment of Wages)

CA-00066259-005: (Holiday Pay)

The Respondent submitted that the rates of pay were agreed by the Complainant with Ms A and that the Board was not made aware of any issues in relation to pay arrangements (to include holiday pay) for boarding. The Board of the Respondent submitted it was not aware of the arrangements made directly between the Complainant and Ms A, nor of any complaint made by the Complainant during his employment with the Respondent regarding pay (to include Sunday pay) and conditions. The Board submitted that it could not find any correspondence regarding the issue. The Respondent submitted that many of the supervisors were casual workers, who chose their own times and dates for work.

The Respondent Board stated that it had responded to the Complainant on receipt of the initial complaint and advised that it was looking into the matter. The Respondent stated that this took some time on account of school closure, holidays and Ms A’s ill health.

CA-00066259-006: (Public Holidays)

The Respondent submitted that the Terms and Conditions were agreed by the Complainant with Ms A and that the Board was not made aware of any issues in relation to pay arrangements (including public holiday pay) for boarding. The Board of the Respondent submitted it was not aware of the arrangements made directly between the Complainant and Ms A, nor of any complaint made by the Complainant during his employment with the Respondent regarding pay (to include Sunday pay) and conditions. The Board submitted that it could not find any correspondence regarding the issue. The Respondent submitted that many of the supervisors were casual workers, who chose their own times and dates for work.

CA-00066259-008: (Daily Rest Periods)

The Respondent submitted that the complainant was not ever required to work consecutively for 17.75 hours. Many of the supervisors were casual workers who chose their own times and dates for work. The terms and conditions were agreed by the complainant with Ms. A. The Board of The Respondent was not made aware of any issue relating to hours of work. The Board of The Respondent was not aware of the arrangements made directly between the complainant and Ms. A, nor of any complaint made by the complainant during his time with The Respondent regarding hours of work. Many of the supervisors were casual workers who chose their own times and dates for work.

The Board of The Respondent cannot find any correspondence (email or otherwise) regarding this issue.

CA-00066259-009: (Breaks)

The Respondent di not provide a specific response to this complaint.

CA-00066259-010: (Working in excess of maximum hours)

The Respondent submitted that the terms and conditions were agreed by the complainant with Ms. A. The Board of The Respondent was not made aware of any issue relating to night hours of work. The Board of The Respondent was not aware of the arrangements made directly between the complainant and Ms. A, nor of any complaint made by the complainant during his time with The Respondent regarding night hours of work. Many of the supervisors were casual workers who chose their own times and dates for work.

The Board of The Respondent could not find any correspondence (email or otherwise) regarding this issue

CA-00066259-011: (Holiday Pay)

The Respondent submitted that the terms and conditions were agreed by the complainant with Ms. A. The Board of The Respondent was not made aware of any issue relating to pay arrangements (to include holiday pay) for boarding. The Board of The Respondent was not aware of the arrangements made directly between the complainant and Ms. A, nor of any complaint made by the complainant during his time with The Respondent regarding holiday pay. Many of the supervisors were casual workers who chose their own times and dates for work.

The Board of The Respondent could not find any correspondence (email or otherwise) regarding this issue. The Board of The Respondent responded to the complainant on receipt of the initial complaint and advised that it was looking into the matter. This took some time on account of school closure, holidays and Ms. A’s ill-health.

Payslips were forwarded to the complainant by The Respondent when this error was brought to the attention the Board by the complainant

CA-00066259-012: (Public Holidays)

Payslips were forwarded to the complainant by The Respondent when this error was brought to the attention the Board by the complainant

CA-00066259-013: (Excessive Night Hours)

The Board of The Respondent could not find any correspondence (email or otherwise) regarding this issue.

CA-00066259-14: (Written statement of T&C’s)

The Respondent submitted that all terms were agreed between the Complainant and Ms A. The Respondent submitted that the Board was not made aware of any issues in relation to terms and it was not aware of any arrangements made directly between the Complainant and Ms A, nor of any complaint made by the Complainant during his employment with the Respondent regarding terms. The Respondent submitted that many of the supervisors were casual workers who chose own times and dates for work. The Respondent submitted that it could not find any correspondence, email or otherwise, regarding the issue.

CA-00066259-15: (Not notified of changes to T&C’s)

The Respondent submitted that there was not enough information in relation to this complaint to provide a response.

CA-00066259-16 (Statement of T&C’s)

The Respondent submitted that all terms were agreed by the complainant with MS. A. The Board of The Respondent was not made aware of any issue relating to the complainant’s Contract. The Board of The Respondent is not aware of the arrangements made directly between the complainant and Ms. A, nor of any complaint made by the complainant during his time with The Respondent regarding his employment. The Board of The Respondent cannot find any correspondence (email or otherwise) regarding this issue.

CA-00066259-17 (Terms of Employment)

The Respondent submitted that there was not enough information in relation to this complaint to provide a response.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00066259-001: (Minimum Wage)

Section 24 (2) of the Act provides:

“The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission shall not entertain a dispute in relation to an employee’s entitlements under this Act and, accordingly, shall not refer the dispute to an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015

(a) unless the employee—

(i) has obtained under section 23 a statement of his or his average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period, or

(ii) having requested the statement, has not been provided with it within the time limited by that section for the employer to supply the information, and a period of 6 months (or such longer period, not exceeding 12 months, as the rights commissioner may allow) has not elapsed since that statement was obtained or time elapsed, as the case may be,

(b) where, in respect of the same alleged under-payment, the employer is or has been—

(i) the subject of investigation by an inspector under section 33 or 34, or

(ii) prosecuted for an offence under section 35.”

This complaint was received 23 September 2024. A reading of Section 24(2) above outlines the clear obligations on employees proceeding with a complaint under the Minimum Wage Act.

The Complainant had not received or sought a statement of his hourly rate when he referred this complaint. His correspondence of 4 June does not meet the requirements of the Act. I therefore find I do not have jurisdiction in the matter.

CA-00066259-002: (Sunday Pay)

The Complainant alleged that he did not receive any premium for working on a Sunday and that in fact his hourly rate for working on a Sunday was lower than the hourly rate that applied mid-week.

The Organisation of Working Time makes very clear the obligation on the employer to retain records for a period of “3 years from the date of their making” and furthermore provides that where an employer does not retain such records “the onus of proving, in any proceedings before a Rights Commissioner or the Labour Court, that the said provision was complied with in relation to the employee shall lie on the employer.”

The Respondent position was that it had no records to demonstrate what had occurred and that, in any event the Complainant had agreed his terms at the outset of the employment relationship with Ms. A.

The Act also provides that the Sunday premium may be incorporated into the basic rate of pay where this is a specific provision in the contract.

I noted that the Respondent did not have any contractual documentation to present and did not present such an argument.

Furthermore, I noted that Section 14 of the act sates:

“14.—(1) An employee who is required to work on a Sunday (and the fact of his or his having to work on that day has not otherwise been taken account of in the determination of his or his pay) shall be compensated by his or his 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

(d) by a combination of two or more of the means referred to in the preceding paragraphs.”

In these circumstances I am very much persuaded by the evidence of the Complainant that he did not receive Sunday premium, particularly in the context that his rate of pay was lower on a Sunday than mid-week and in all the circumstances I find his complaint to be well founded.

I have established that 33% is a common rate applied to comparable employees in the service industry who are often paid the minimum rate of pay or a lower rate and accordingly, I find that this should have been awarded to the Complainant on top of his mid-week pay rate.

CA-00066259-004: (Payment of Wages)

CA-00066259-005: (Holiday Pay)

The Complainant claimed payment for annual leave for the duration of his employment from 28 August 2022 until the termination of his employment. I noted his position that he had not received any paid annual leave or pay in lieu of annual leave throughout his employment. I noted also, the Respondent position that it did not have records to confirm it’s position but that the arrangements in place were agreed between the Complainant and Ms. A at the commencement of the employment relationship.

Section 25- (1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act states that “An employer shall keep, at the premises or place where his or his employee works or, if the employee works at two or more premises or places, the premises or place from which the activities that the employee is employed to carry on are principally directed or controlled, such records, in such form, if any, as may be prescribed, as will show whethis the provisions of this Act and, where applicable, [the activities of Doctors in Training Regulations] are being complied with in relation to the employee and those records shall be retained by the employer for at least 3 years from the date of their making.”

Section (3) and (4) further outlined that:

(3) An employer who, without reasonable cause, fails to comply with subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence

(4) Without prejudice to subsection (3), where an employer fails to keep records under subsection (1) in respect of his or his compliance with a particular provision of this Act or the [Activities of Doctors in Training Regulations] in relation to an employee, the onus of proving, in proceedings before a Rights Commissioner or the Labour Court, that the said provision was complied with in relation to the employee shall lie on the employer.”

The Respondent has provided no evidence to show how the Complainant’s entitlement to annual leave was addressed throughout his employment. In that context I find that the Complainant had an entitlement to receive paid annual leave.

Consequently, I must now consider his entitlement and what redress is appropriate in the circumstances.

The entitlement to paid statutory annual leave is set out in section 9-(1) of the Act as follows:

“Subject to the First schedule (which contains transitional provision in respect of the leave yers 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 he works at least 1,365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or he changes employment),

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

(c) 8 per cent. of the hours he or he 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 his 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 his place of work or at his or his employer’s disposal, and

(b) carrying on or performing the activities or duties of his or his 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 his employer a certificate of a registered medical practitioner in respect of his or his 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 his 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 he 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

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 28 August 2022 and worked 42 hours per week. He should therefore have received 18 days paid annual leave in each full year of employment and should have received a prop rata entitlement for each part year worked.

Time limit

I note that Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides:

“Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or his 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.”

However, I further note the CJEU decisionin King v Sash Windows (In Case C‑214/16, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), made by decision of 30 March 2016, received at the Court on 18 April 2016, in the proceedings Conley King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd, Richard Dollar, as follows:

“First, according to the Court’s settled case-law, the right to paid annual leave cannot be interpreted restrictively (see judgment of 22 April 2010 Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols, C‑486/08, EU:C:2010:215, paragraph 29). Thus, any derogation from the European Union system for the organisation of working time put in place by Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted in such a way that its scope is limited to what is strictly necessary in order to safeguard the interests which that derogation protects (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 October 2010, Union Syndicale Solidaires Isère, C‑428/09, EU:C:2010:612, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).

59 In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, protection of the employer’s interests does not seem strictly necessary and, accordingly, does not seem to justify derogation from a worker’s entitlement to paid annual leave.

60 It must be noted that the assessment of the right of a worker, such as Mr King, to paid annual leave is not connected to a situation in which his employer was faced with periods of his absence which, as with long-term sickness absence, would have led to difficulties in the organisation of work. On the contrary, the employer was able to benefit, until Mr King retired, from the fact that he did not interrupt his professional activity in its service in order to take paid annual leave.

61 Second, even if it were proved, the fact that Sash WW considered, wrongly, that Mr King was not entitled to paid annual leave is irrelevant. Indeed, it is for the employer to seek all information regarding his obligations in that regard.

62 Against that background, as is clear from paragraph 34 of the present judgment, the very existence of the right to paid annual leave cannot be subject to any preconditions whatsoever, that right being conferred directly on the worker by Directive 2003/88. Thus, as regards the case in the main proceedings, it is irrelevant whether or not, over the years, Mr King made requests for paid annual leave (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 June 2014, Bollacke, C‑118/13, EU:C:2014:1755, paragraphs 27 and 28).

63 It follows from the above that, unlike in a situation of accumulation of entitlement to paid annual leave by a worker who was unfit for work due to sickness, an employer that does not allow a worker to exercise his right to paid annual leave must bear the consequences.

64 Third, in such circumstances, in the absence of any national statutory or collective provision establishing a limit to the carry-over of leave in accordance with the requirements of EU law (see, to that effect, judgments of 22 November 2011, KHS, C‑214/10, EU:C:2011:761 and of 3 May 2012, Neidel, C‑337/10, EU:C:2012:263), the European Union system for the organisation of working time put in place by Directive 2003/88 may not be interpreted restrictively. Indeed, if it were to be accepted, in that context, that the worker’s acquired entitlement to paid annual leave could be extinguished, that would amount to validating conduct by which an employer was unjustly enriched to the detriment of the very purpose of that directive, which is that this should be due regard for workers’ health.

65 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to the second to fifth questions is that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices that prevent a worker from carrying over and, where appropriate, accumulating, until termination of his employment relationship, paid annual leave rights not exercised in respect of several consecutive reference periods because his employer refused to remunerate that leave.

And the employer now estimates the following:

For leave year 2024/25 the balance is now: 13 weeks at 23 hours per week at 8% 23.92 hours accumulated this year. Hours Total outstanding as of June 30th 2024, 23.92 + 79.18 103 hours.

The right to accrued leave continues until cessation of employment.”

In light of the above CJEU interpretation of the Directive I must conclude that the Complainant has a right to the accrued annual leave from commencement of employment in August 2022 until the cessation of employment in April 2024 and in these circumstances, he was entitled to receive payment in lieu of the leave at the time of termination of employment. I calculate his annual leave entitlement to be 48 days equating to a monetary value of €2157.

In all the circumstances I find his complaint to be well founded.

CA-00066259-006: (Public Holidays)

The Complainant sought payment for public holidays owed from commencement to the termination of his employment and at the applicable minimum wage rate.

I have dealt with the claim for the minimum wage at CA-00066259-001 above and in circumstances where the Complainant had not complied with the requirements of the Act, I did not have jurisdiction to address his claim in that regard. Therefore, I am considering this claim based on the rate of pay operating at the time of his employment.

Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides:

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 his employer determines, namely—

(a) a paid day off on that day,

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

(d) an additional day's pay:

This complaint was received on 23 September 2024. In accordance with Section 41 of the Act, the cognisable time period is 23 March 2024 to 21 June 2024 (being the last day of his employment)

In that period this were 4 public holidays, 18/03/2024, 01/04/2024, 06/05/2024 and 03/06/2024.

In all the circumstances I find his complaint to be well founded.

CA-00066259-008: (Daily Rest Periods)

The Complainant alleged that he did not receive his entitlement to daily rest periods throughout his employment and he outlined the detail of mid-week and weekend shifts which he worked.

Section 11 of the Act provides that “An employee shall be entitled to a rest period of not less than 11 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours during which he or he works for his or his employer.”

Section 13 of the Act states:

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.

(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 his, 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.

(4) If considerations of a technical nature or related to the conditions under which the work concerned is organised or otherwise of an objective nature would justify the making of such a decision, an employer may decide that the time at which a rest period granted by him or his under subsection (2) or (3) shall commence shall be such that the rest period is not immediately preceded by a daily rest period.

(5) Save as may be otherwise provided in the employee’s contract of employment—

(a) the rest period granted to an employee under subsection (2), or

(b) one of the rest periods granted to an employee under subsection (3), shall be a Sunday or, if the rest period is of more than 24 hours duration, shall include a Sunday.

(6) The requirement in subsection (2) or paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3) as to the time at which a rest period under this section shall commence shall not apply in any case where, by reason of a provision of this Act or an instrument or agreement under, or referred to in, this Act, the employee concerned is not entitled to a daily rest period in the circumstances concerned.

Based on the above it is clear that the Complainant had an entitlement to 11 hours rest in every 24-hour period. I must now evaluate the shifts worked by the Complainant against that entitlement

Shift 1 (Mid-week Night Shift)

The Complainant set out that when working a mid-week night shift he worked a total of 13 hours and 15 minutes. This shift commenced at 8 pm and finished at 9.15 am the following day. Therefore, on day 1 he worked a total of 4 hrs and on day 2 he worked a total of 9 hrs and 15 mins. The Complainant outlined that he often worked that 13hour 15 min shift and returned to a further 13 hr 15 min shift. Such a roster pattern would signify a breach of the rest period entitlement in all consecutive days rostered.

Shift 2 (Weekend Night Shift)

The Complainant set out that when working a weekend or public holiday night shift he worked a total of 15 hours and 15 minutes. This shift commenced at 6 pm and finished at 9.15 am the following day. Therefore, on day 1 he worked a total of 6 hrs and on day 2 he worked a total of 9 hrs and 15 mins. The Complainant outlined that he often worked that -15hour 15 min shift and returned to a further 15 hr 15 min shift. Such a roster pattern would signify a breach of the rest period entitlement in all consecutive days rostered.

Shift 3 (Day shift)

The Complainant set out that when working a day shift, he worked from 5.30 pm to 8 pm. It is evident that this was no breach of the Act in relation to the day shift.

It is clear from the shift patterns described by the Complainant that the night roster shift pattern does not comply with the requirements of the Act for an 11-hour rest period. The Act places the obligation on the employer to retain records of times worked. The Respondent confirmed it did not have those records. The act also makes clear that in circumstances where the Respondent does not retain the records the burden of proof lies with the Respondent to demonstrate compliance. The Respondent did not provide any evidence to demonstrate compliance or to refute the details submitted by the Complainant.

In all the circumstances I find this complaint to be well founded.

CA-00066259-009: (Breaks)

The Complainant alleged that he did not receive his entitlement to breaks during his working day and he outlined that during night shifts he worked a total of 13hrs and 15 mins (mid-week) and 15 hrs and 15 mins (weekend) without receiving any break. He submitted that this was due to the fact that the children could not be left unsupervised at any time and that this were not sufficient staff rostered on at the same time to allow for breaks. He further submitted that the Respondent controlled the hours of work and the number of staff rostered.

It was clarified, in the course of the hearing that the primary school children went to bed at 8 pm, while post-primary children could remain up until midnight. In these circumstances it is obvious that staff could have made arrangements to take a break after 8 pm. The taking of these breaks was very much in the control of the staff rostered on duty and I do not accept that they never received such a break.

In the circumstances I find this complaint to be not well founded.

CA-00066259-010: (Working in excess of Maximum permitted hours)

The Complainant alleged that he was required to work more than the maximum permitted number of hours and he submitted that between August 2022 and June 2024 he worked a total of 2628.5 hours. He further submitted typically he worked 50.75 hrs a week which included mostly night work. He submitted that of those hours he classified 41.75 hours as night shifts.

Section 15 of the Act states:

“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”) …”

Based on his evidence the Complainant was working on average 50.75 hours per week. The Respondent did not provide any evidence to demonstrate otherwise. In these circumstances I find that this complaint is well founded.

CA-00066259-011: (Holiday Pay)

At hearing the Complaint confirmed that he was withdrawing the complaint on the basis that it was a duplicate of CA-00662579-005.

CA-00066259-012: (Public Holidays)

At hearing the Complaint confirmed that he was withdrawing the complaint on the basis that it was a duplicate of CA-00662579-006.

CA-00066259-013: (Excessive Night Hours)

The Complainant alleged that he was required to work excessive night hours. He submitted that his night shifts commenced at 6pm on weekends and 8 pm on weekdays and finished at 9.15 am. This equated to a total of 13hrs 15 mins and 15 hrs 15 mins respectively. He further submitted that typically he worked 50.75 hrs per week, of which 41.75 were night shifts.

Section 16 of the Act states that ““night time” means the period between midnight and 7 am on the following day”

Section 16(2) provides that “an employer shall not permit a night worker, in each period of 24 hours, to work –

(a) In a case where the work done by the worker in that period includes night work and the worker is a special category night worker, more than 8 hours,

(b) In any other case, more than an average of 8 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a “reference period”)….”

Based on the shift durations provided by the Complainant it is clear that when working the night shift the Complainant worked a total of 7 hours between the hours of mid night and 7 am. Therefore, no breach of the legislation occurred. In these circumstances I find this complaint to be not well founded.

CA-00066259-014: (Statement of Terms of Employment)

Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act states:

“3.- (1) An employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment…”

The Complainant alleged that he did not receive a statement in writing of his terms and conditions of employment when he commenced employment on 28 August 2022.

The Respondent was obligated under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act to provide the Complainant with a written statement of his terms and conditions within 2 months of his start date, therefore he should have received such a statement by 28 October 2022, and he alleged he did not receive that statement. The Respondent did not provide any evidence to the contrary.

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act states that “Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or his 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.”

In accordance with the above provisions the Complainant was required to submit his complaint within 6 months of the date of the breach. Consequently, the latest date on which the Complainant could have submitted his complaint was 28 April 2023. In circumstances where the Complainant actually submitted his complaint on 25 September 2024, I find that this complaint is out of time and I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

CA-00066259-015: (Notification of Change to Terms of Employment)

The Complainant alleged that he was not notified in writing of changes to his terms of employment. He submitted that in September 2023 the start time of his Sunday night shift changed from 7 pm to 6 pm.

The Terms of Employment (Information) Act places an obligation on the employer to notify the employee of changes to their core terms of employment and the Complainant alleged that he did not receive the relevant notice. He did not, however, provide an exact date in September 2023 when this change occurred. For the purpose of demonstration, I have assumed 30 September 2023 as the date of the change.

As outlined under CA-00066259-015 above, a complaint must be submitted within 6 months of the date of contravention to which the complaint relates. Allowing for a contravention date of 30 September 2023, the latest date on which the Complainant could have submitted his complaint was 30 March 2024. In circumstances where the Complainant actually submitted his complaint on 25 September 2024, I find that this complaint is out of time and I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

CA-00066259-16

At hearing, the Complaint confirmed that he was withdrawing the complaint on the basis that it was a duplicate of CA-00662579-014.

CA-00066259-17

At hearing, following discussion on this complaint the Complaint confirmed that he was withdrawing the complaint on the basis that it was submitted in error.

Decision:

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

CA-00066259-001: (Minimum Wage)

I found that the Complainant had not received or sought a statement of his hourly rate when he referred this complaint and I therefore do not have jurisdiction in the matter. In these circumstances it is my decision that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00066259-002: (Sunday Pay)

I found that the Complainant did not receive Sunday premium, and that his complaint was well founded, and I decide accordingly.

Based on a premium of 33%, an hourly rate of €6.42 and a Sunday shift of 15 hrs and 15 mins I calculate the Complainants loss to be €835 for the cognisable period of this complaint. I therefore direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the amount of €835 representing the monetary loss associated with his unpaid Sunday Premium together with the sum of €2,000 compensation for breach of the Act.

CA-00066259-004: (Payment of Wages)

This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00066259-005: (Holiday Pay)

I found that this complaint is well founded, and I decide accordingly. I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €2157 representing the monetary loss associated with his annual leave together with the sum of €2,000 compensation for breach of the Act.

CA-00066259-006: (Public Holidays)

I found this complaint to be well founded, and I decide accordingly. I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €360 representing the monetary loss associated with his public holiday entitlement within the cognisable period of this complaint together with the sum of €2,000 compensation for breaches of the Act.

CA-00066259-008: (Daily Rest)

I found this complaint to be well founded and I decide accordingly. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €2000 compensation for breaches of the Act.

CA-00066259-009: (Breaks)

I found this complaint to be not well founded and I decide accordingly.

CA-00066259-009:

I found this complaint to be not well founded and I decide accordingly.

CA- 00066259-010 (Working in excess of maximum permitted hours)

I found this complaint to be well founded and I decide accordingly. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €2000 compensation for breaches of the Act.

CA-00066259-011: (Holiday Pay)

This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00066259-012: (Public Holidays)

This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00066259-013: (Excessive Night Hours)

I found this complaint to be not well founded and I decide accordingly.

CA-00066259-014: (Statement of Terms of Employment)

I found that this complaint was out of time. In these circumstances I decide that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00066259-015: (Notification of Change to Terms of Employment)

I found that this complaint was out of time. In these circumstances I decide that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00066259-016

This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00066259-017

This complaint was withdrawn.

Dated: 22nd August 2025.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens

Key Words:

Minimum wage, Sunday premium, holiday pay, public holiday pay, rest periods, excessive hours of work, excessive night working, terms of employment