ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053397

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Ellen Beamish	Windmill Lane Recording Studios & Dale Entertainments Ltd.

Representatives

Ian Beamish

Company Managers, Ms Halligan and Mr Quarry

Complaints:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065131-001	31/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000	CA-00065131-003	31/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-004	31/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-005	31/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-007	31/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-008	31/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00065131-009	31/07/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/12/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, Section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 , Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 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.

The required Oath / Affirmation was administered to all witnesses present. The legal peril of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.

No issue regarding confidentiality arose.

Parallel Industrial Relations Act,1969 Dispute

The above complaints were heard in conjunction with a parallel Industrial Relations Act,1969 Dispute

Background:

The issues in contention were that the Complainant did not receive ,as required by Statute , (1) a Statement of her terms and conditions or a Contract of Employment, (2) The National Minimum Wage,(3) Compensation for Sunday Work, (4) Public Holiday Pay,(5) Rest Breaks during her Shifts, (6) Worked Excessive hours beyond the Legal permitted maximum and (7) was not afforded her Legal Minimum Notice payments on termination.

The parallel Industrial Relations Act,1969 dispute concerned her alleged Unfair Dismissal.

The employment began on the 22nd of August 2023 and ended on the 29th July 2024.

The weekly rate of pay was €250 for, as contended by the Complainant a 50-hour week. This figure was disputed by the Respondent.

1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:

For ease of reference a Tabular format will be used.

The Complainant was represented by Mr Ian Beamish. Extensive Oral Testimony was given supported by a comprehensive Written Submission.

Following the Hearing on the 4th December 2024 supplemental written materials were requested by the Adjudication Officer. These were exchanged between the Parties and commentary provided to the Adjudication Officer.

1:2 Details of Complaints

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Summary Complaint
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065131-001	No statement of Terms and conditions ever received, and no proper Contract of Employment was ever offered. A Respondent document had been produced on or about the 3rd October which none of the Interns signed as it was felt to be outside of the law.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000	CA-00065131-003	The National Minimum Wage was never paid. The rate of pay was €250 per week irrespective of hours worked.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-004	No Sunday Premium was ever paid to the Complainant. No Sunay premium was paid irrespective of the number of Sundays the Complainant was sked to work.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-005	No Public Holiday payments were made to the Complainant irrespective of the number of Public Holidays the Complainant was asked to work.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-007	The Complainant was expected to be completely available at all times and no breaks were ever allowed/facilitated as required by Law.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-008	The Complainant was regularly expected to work up to 70 hours a week. The Complainant cited February 2024 as evidence and with numerous examples of excessive work hours.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00065131-009	The Complainant was not afforded any Minimum Notice payment on the alleged abrupt termination of her employment on the 29th July 2024.

2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:

As in the Complainant’s case above a Tabular Format will be used. The Respondent principal spokesperson/representative was Ms M Halligan supported by Mr Quarry. A detailed written submission was provided.

2:1 Details of Responses
Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Summary Respondent Response
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065131-001 No statement of Terms and conditions ever received and no Contract of Employment	The Complainant was engaged as an “Intern” on a one-year placement. During the Interview processes for these much sought after positions the full duties, working hours, weekend and night commitments etc of the position were explained in full. There could be no doubt that the Complainant fully understood her Terms and Conditions. On or about the 3rd October 2023 a formal Contract was provided, and a copy was left for signature for the Complainant. It appears that she never collected the document or signed it. No discussion or raising of issues took place with the Interns in relation to their having any issues with the Contract. The Manager Ms H was always completely available. None the less the Employer’s obligations were discharged by making a Contract available and there can be no proper complaint here.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000	CA-00065131-003 The National Minimum Wage was never paid.	On examination of Wage records the Respondent acknowledged a deficiency in the pay rates. An offer of €669.10 was made to address the shortfall. This figure is derived from a balancing of an Overpayment during 23rd August 2023 to December 2023 against an underpayment for the period January 2024 to July 2024. The Respondent contested the claimed Hours supplied by the Complainant which they felt were seriously exaggerated.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-004 No Sunday Premium was ever paid to the Complainant.	The Respondent acknowledged that the Complainant had worked 11 Sundays. An offer of a 25% premium equating to €256.52 was made by the Respondent.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-005 No Public Holiday payments were made to the Complainant	The Respondent made an offer to pay for 10 Public Holidays that they felt were due to the Complaint equivalent to €480. 03..
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-007 No Breaks allowed.	The Respondent did not have a formal Rest Break policy. However, Interns such as the Complainant were effectively allowed take their breaks as the operational situation allowed. No employee is denied by Policy the opportunity to take Breaks.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-008 Weekly Maximum Working Hours.	Detailed analysis of Records showed that the Complainant worked on average over a 16-week reference period of 21.8 hours. No contravention of the 48-hour average rules occurred.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00065131-009 No Minimum notice	The Complainant was on a fixed term Intern arrangement due to end on the 18th of August 2024. Her employment was finished early by the Respondent on the 29th July 2024. The Complainant was paid fully for her remaining period of employment. No claim for Minimum Notice can be sustained in this context.

2:2 General Respondent views

The relationship between the Parties was that of a Postgraduate “Internship” to allow the Complainant gain Industry experience in a busy Recording/Music Studio facility. Of its very nature the Internship process in a modern Recording /Music Studio is not that found in a traditional 9 to 5 Industrial or Office setting.

None the less employment records were maintained on a Google calendar with some additional spread sheets. The situation is not as stark as the Complainant claims. Deficiencies were identified and a total redress offer of €1,416.65 was made to the Complainant in settlement of her complaints. It is a fair and reasonable settlement offer.

3: Findings and Conclusions:

3:1 General Comments From the Oral evidence given by all Parties it was clear that the arrangements between the Parties were to a certain extent “bohemian” in nature - graduate Music Production Students working in a premier Recording Studio that operated it appeared 7 days a week on 24-hour basis as required. In this context traditional Employment Law arrangements would be hard to manage. None the less the Legislation is set in place and cannot be ignored. A key issue and challenge for the Adjudicator was the vary wide divergencies in Working Hours / Attendance evidence advanced by the Parties. Both sides were under sworn oath/affirmation and Witnesses presented as very sincere for the Complainant and Managerially very competent for the Respondent. Of necessity it was required to take a Balance of Probability approach
3:1 Details of Responses
Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Adjudication Discussion / Conclusions.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065131-001 No statement of Terms and conditions ever received and no Contract of Employment	Section 3 of the Terms of Employment Information act ,1994 requires a detailed Statement of Terms and Conditions to be provided no less that one month from the commencement of employment. The relationship commenced on the 14th August 2023, but a Contract was not made available until the 3rd of October 2023. In addition, the number of hours expected to be worked, the normal working day and the normal week was not specified. The Contract is silent on many of the above points. Accordingly, the Complaint has to be deemed, under Section 7 of the Act, well founded and worthy of Redress.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000	CA-00065131-003 The National Minimum Wage was never paid.	On examination of Wage records the Respondent acknowledged a deficiency in the pay rates. An offer of €669.10 was made to address the shortfall. This figure is derived from a balancing of an Overpayment during 23rd August 2023 to December 2023 against an underpayment for the period January 2024 to July 2024. The divergence in Hours and cash value here between the Parties amounts to a Complainant claim of €12,352. Section 26(1) of the National Minimum Wage Act,2000 allows an Adjudication Officer to make “such direction and such requirement as the Adjudication Officer considers appropriate”. In this instance Section 24 Disputes about entitlement to minimum hourly rates of Pay needs consideration. A technical issue then arises that under Section 23 a formal request for a written Statement Pay for a reference period must be provided. In this case this formal request does not appear to have been made. In strict application of the Act a claim under Section 26 is then inadmissible. On balance the Respondent Employer has admitted liability and offered a payment of €669.10. Under Section 26(1) the Adjudication decision has to be that this offer is accepted.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-004 No Sunday Premium was ever paid to the Complainant.	The Respondent acknowledged that the Complainant had worked 11 Sundays. An offer of a 25% premium equating to €256.52 was made by the Respondent. On the Respondent effective admission of liability, the Complaint is deemed to be Well Founded and Redress of the amount offered by the Respondent is ordered.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-005 No Public Holiday payments were made to the Complainant	The Respondent made an offer to pay for 10 Public Holidays that they felt were due to the Complaint equivalent to €480.03. Under Section 27 (3) (c) of the OWT Act,1977 the complaint is deemed well founded and the compensation offered by the Respondent is directed to be paid.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-007 No Breaks allowed.	It was clear that the operation of the “Interns” work schedules/rosters was not in strict keeping with section 12 “Rest Periods” of the Act. This was more to do with the overall “Bohemian” nature of the entire operation. Accordingly, under Section 27 of the OWT Act,1977 the complaint has to be seen as Well Founded and deserving of Redress. Under Section 27 (3) (c) Redress of two weeks wages (€ 250 x 2 = €500) is directed to be paid.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-008 Weekly Maximum Working Hours.	Divergences in Record between both Parties was again a major issue here. Respondent analysis of Records, under Sworn Oath/Affirmation showed in their view that the Complainant worked on average over a 16-week reference period of 21.8 hours. Allowing for even a large margin of error on the Respondent side the Balance of Probability has to lie with the Respondent. No contravention of the 48-hour average rules occurred. The complaint cannot be deemed Well Founded.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00065131-009 No Minimum notice	The Complainant was on a fixed term Intern arrangement due to end on the 18th of August 2024. Her employment was finished early by the Respondent on the 29th July 2024. The Complainant was paid fully for her remaining period of employment. No claim for Minimum Notice can be sustained in this context. The Adjudication view has to be that the Complainant was on a fixed term contract. Payment was made in full to the end of the period of employment. No minimum notice payment was legally due. The Complaint cannot be seen as Well Founded and has to fail

4: 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.

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Formal Adjudication Decision
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065131-001	The complaint is deemed Well Founded. Redress of Two weeks’ pay (€250 x 2 =€500 ) is ordered to be paid. This is Compensation for the breach of a statutory right and is not Renumeration of any form
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000	CA-00065131-003	The figure of € 669.10 on offer from the Respondent is directed to be paid to the Complainant
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-004	On a Technical basis the complaint is deemed to be Well Founded. The figure of € 256.52 on offer from the Respondent is deemed to be reasonable Compensation and is directed to be paid.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-005	On a Technical basis the complaint is deemed to be well founded. The figure of €480.03. on offer from the Respondent is deemed to be reasonable compensation and is directed to be paid.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-007	The Complaint is deemed to be well founded as set out in Section 3 of this Adjudication above. Compensation Redress of two weeks’ pay € (250) x 2 -€500 is directed to be paid.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065131-008	On the balance of probability, the complaint cannot be deemed legally Well Founded and has to be dismissed.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00065131-009	The Complaint cannot be deemed to be Legally Well Founded for the reasons set out in Adjudication decision Section 3 above. It has to fail.

Summary

CA -00065131-001 Complaint Well Founded. Compensation Redress of €500 awarded.

CA -00065131-003 Employer offer of €669.10 to be paid to the Complainant.

CA-00065131-004 Complaint Well Founded. Redress of €256.52 awarded.

CA-00065131-005 Complaint Well Founded. Redress of €480.03 awarded.

CA-00065131-007 Complaint Well Founded. Compensation Redress of € 500 awarded.

CA-00065131-008 Complaint Not Well Founded. No Redress awarded.

CA-00065131-009 Complaint Not Well Founded. No Redress awarded.

Dated: 11-03-2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Key Words:

Contract of Employment, Annual Leave, Sunday premium, Working Hours, Minimum Notice.