Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Rahul  Gupta

Cronnkeen Ltd.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18A of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00069664-001

01/03/2025

The Complainant stated that from June 2023, he was employed as a Sales Assistant by the Respondent, which owns and operates a Spar shop, under a written contract of employment which specifies 40 working hours per week.

The Complainant asserts that although his contract provides for 40 hours, and an annual salary of €32,000 on the basis of working these hours, in practice he worked approximately 30 hours per week on average and was only paid for those hours. He contends that this is contrary to Section 18A of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and submits that he is entitled to payment for the full 40 hours as stated in the contract.

The Complainant stated that he began his employment as a part-time Retail Assistant and subsequently received a contract of employment which stated that his working hours were from 8 30 am to 5 pm each day and that he was entitled to a guaranteed salary of €32,000.

He stated that despite his contract requiring him to work from 8 30 am to 5 pm, he usually worked and was paid for approximately 30 hours worked.

He accepted in his evidence that he had never raised any issue he had about the hours he was working with anyone in the Respondent.

The Respondent’s witness, Mr Cronnelly, stated that the Complainant commenced employment on 1 December 2022 as a part-time Sales Assistant and was issued with a contract of employment at that time to reflect this status.

Mr Cronnelly disputed the Complainant’s contention that he had subsequently been issued with a full-time contract in June 2023 and maintained that the Complainant was paid for all hours worked. He further asserted that the Complainant had never raised any issue with his hours during his employment.

While not central to the present complaint, the Respondent’s evidence in relation to the Complainant’s role and immigration status gave rise to some concern. In his written submissions, and again in his initial sworn evidence, Mr Cronnelly stated that although the Complainant had started as a part-time Retail Assistant in December 2022, he had subsequently been employed as a Business and Data Analyst from March 2023, further to which a Critical Skills Employment Permit was secured on his behalf. However, when questioned directly by the Adjudication Officer, the witness accepted that the Complainant had never in fact been employed as a Business and Data Analyst and that he had at all times remained employed as a Retail Assistant.

This was notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent had secured a visa for the Complainant on the basis that he would be engaged in the role of Business and Data Analyst. The witness also denied that it was his signature on the Complainant’s work permit application documentation, despite the Complainant’s assertion that the signature was that of Mr Cronnelly.

Section 18A (2) of the Organisation of Working Time Act states:

2) In accordance with subsection (1), where an employee believes that he or she is entitled to be placed in a band of weekly working hours, he or she shall inform the employer and request, in writing, to be so placed.

Findings:

It is clear from Section 18A (2) above that an employee must request in writing that he or she be placed in a band of weekly hours.

As the Complainant accepted that he had not made a request in writing to the Respondent that he be placed in a band of weekly hours, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reason set out above.