DWT2657

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00047804 (CA-00058210-020)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court on the 05/06/2024.

A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 21/01/2026.

The following is the Labour Court's Decision:

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal on behalf of Ocean Palace Chinese Takeaway Limited (‘the Respondent’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00047804/CA-00058210-020, dated 30 April 2024) under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1998 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 5 June 2024. A case management conference was convened on 18 July 2025. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 21 January 2026.

Factual Background

Ms Zoe Murphy (‘the Complainant’) worked as a part-time member of counter staff at the Chinese takeaway premises operated by the Respondent in Navan, Co Meath, from April 2021 until she resigned her employment on 6 August 2023. As of the date of her resignation she was paid a flat rate of €85.00 in cash per shift worked.

There was a conflict of evidence between the Parties in relation to the number of shifts per week the Complainant worked. On her account, she worked 5 shifts in each fortnight, two the first week and three the second week. The Respondent submitted that she always worked a maximum of two shifts per week. The Respondent’s written submission to the Court included copy payslips. However, it is clear to the Court that these were not issued contemporaneously to the Complainant and do not tally with either Party’s submission in relation to the number of hours worked by the Complainant.

 The Claim

The Complainant is seeking redress under the Act in respect of the Respondent’s failure to with rest breaks during her shifts.

The Complainant told the Court that she had never been able to take a rest break during her shift as she was the only person on duty with sufficient English to take orders and receive payments from customers. Mr Lin Chen, the proprietor of the Respondent, told the Court that he frequently stepped in to allow the Complainant a thirty-minute rest break. Questioned by the Court about whether he had sufficient English to do this, Mr Lin Chen said, through the Court’s interpreter, that his English language competence extended to an understanding of the names of the dishes listed on the takeaway menu. Mr Lin Chen also told the Court that he had no records of the breaks granted to the Complainant to put before the Court.

Discussion and Decision

The Court found the Complainant to be a most credible witness. Her evidence was consistent and compelling. The same cannot be said of Mr Lin Chen. His evidence was inconsistent, contradictory and disingenuous. On the one hand, for example, he told the Court that he was sufficiently competent in the English language to process customers’ orders while having earlier told the Court that his English was too poor to receive complaints from the Complainant about the manner in which the chef had been mistreating her.

In the absence of any evidence before the Court that the Complainant received regular rest breaks, other than Mr Lin Chen’s improbable assertion that he stood in to deal with the customers for thirty-minute intervals, the Court can only conclude that the Complainant did not receive regular rest breaks. The Court awards compensation to the Complainant of €1,000.00 in respect of the Respondent’s breach of the Act in this respect. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
AL	______________________
23 January 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.