Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Christopher  Murray

Amazon Ireland Support Services Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms K McVeigh BL instructed by Claire Reihill  of Eversheds Sutherland LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00071041-001

23/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00071041-002

21/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00071041-003

21/05/2025

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

CA-00071041-004

21/05/2025

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

CA-00071041-005

21/05/2025

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

CA-00071041-006

21/05/2025

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

CA-00071041-007

21/05/2025

The issue in contention was a number of complaints under the Organisation of Working time Act,1998 alleging Penalisation for exercising his rights under the Act with associated Public Holiday & Annual Leave Complaints. Related complaints under the Payment of Wages Act,1991 concerning alleged unlawful deductions with failure to pay proper wages were also made.

The Complainant was employed as a Supervisor from 15th December 2023 until his resignation effective from the 7th May 2025.

The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been €830 per week for a 39.88-hour week.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Summary Complaint

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

CA-00071041-001

The Complainant, in early 2025, raised issues with the Employer Sick pay Scheme particularly the treatment of short-term absences. Shortly afterwards, he was investigated for “Early clock Ins” was given Counselling Forms and was subject to two Absence Reviews. The processes involved were clearly biased and lacked proper transparency. It was clearly a pattern of Victimisation following on from his Sick Pay Policy Grievance.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00071041-002

The Complainant alleged that he had been under paid for Bank Holiday shifts -being paid only at a basic 8-hour rate when in fact he worked a rostered longer (10 hour) shift. He was due a payment of some 130 hours.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00071041-003

The Respondent only paid 8 hours for a Public Holiday Shift irrespective of the actual hours worked – in this case 10 hours.

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

CA-00071041-004

The Complainant was not paid his proper Public Holiday entitlements under the O of WT Time Act,1997.

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

CA-00071041-005

The Complainant was not paid his proper Ordinary Holiday entitlement under the O of WT time Act ,1997.

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

CA-00071041-006

The Complainant was not paid his proper Ordinary Holiday entitlement under the O of WT time Act ,1997.

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

CA-00071041-007

The Complainant was not paid for his Public Holiday entitlements on leaving the employment -an offence under the O of WT Act,1998.

To assist matters a Tabular Format will be used. The Respondent was represented by Ms C McVeigh BL instructed by Ms Reihill of Eversheds Sutherland LLP. A number of Respondent Senior Managers were also in support at the Hearing.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Summary Complaint

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

CA-00071041-001      Sick Pay Scheme –“Penalisation.”

The Respondent, in essence, argued that the Respondent had not identified any factual causative link to properly ground a Penalisation complaint. Extensive case law precedent was quoted in support. The Labour Court case Barrett v Dept of Defence EDA 1017 was cited as raising three questions that the Complainant failed to satisfy. These were, firstly, did the Complainant take a “Protected Action”, secondly, was he subjected to Adverse Treatment and thirdly, was the Adverse Treatment causally linked to the Protected Acts, in this case his Grievance?  It was the Respondent view that the complaint failed on all three grounds. The Supreme Court in Baranya V Rosderra Meats [2021] was also cited in support of the need for a Complainant to affirm a firm causal link between actions and a detriment imposed.

All told the Complaint failed to properly satisfy these legal tests

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00071041-002 Bank Holiday Shifts underpaid.

The Respondent stated that all monies due were paid to the Complainant under this heading. The payments had been made (following a detailed examination) posthis resignation. Consequently, no monies were now due.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00071041-003 Public Holiday Shifts calculations.

The Respondent acknowledged that an Administrative error may have arisen in relation to 8 hour as opposed to 10-hour shifts on Public holidays. However, this had been conceded and all monies due to the Complainant had been properly paid.

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

CA-00071041-004 Public Holidays under the O of WT Act

As above under the Payment of Wages Act,1991 -no payment liability now attaches to the Respondent.

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

CA-00071041-005 Ordinary Holidays

As above under the Payment of Wages Act,1991 -no payment liability now attaches to the Respondent.

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

CA-00071041-006 Public Holidays

As above under the Payment of Wages Act,1991 -no payment liability now attaches to the Respondent.

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

CA-00071041-007 Public Holidays on leaving employment.

As above under the Payment of Wages Act,1991 -no payment liability now attaches to the Respondent.

3:1       Legal Positon.

CA: 00071041-001      Sick Pay Scheme – “Penalisation.”

This was the key part of the Complainant’s case.

Section 26 of the act is worth quoting in full in considering the Penalisation question.

Refusal by an employee to co-operate with employer in breaching Act.

26. —(1) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation of an employee for—

(a) invoking any right conferred on him or her by this Act,

(b) having in good faith opposed by lawful means an act that is unlawful under this Act,

(c) giving evidence in any proceedings under this Act, or

(d) giving notice of his or her intention to do any of the things referred to in the preceding paragraphs.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the making of a complaint that is a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

(3) In proceedings under Part 4 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a failure to comply with subsection (1) it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the employee concerned has acted reasonably and in good faith in forming the opinion and making the communication concerned.

(4) If a penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (1), constitutes a dismissal of the employee within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015, relief may not be granted to the employee in respect of that penalisation both under this Act and under those Acts.

(5) In this section "penalisation" means any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects an employee to his or her detriment with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—

(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015), or the threat of suspension, lay-off or dismissal,

(b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion,

(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours,

(d) imposition or the administering of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty), and

(e) coercion or intimidation.

 Underlining by Adjudication Officer.

However, and notwithstanding the Legal position and Precedents all cases rest on their own evidential and factual basis. This will be considered below.

3:2       Discussion of Evidence

A central tenet of the Complainant’s case was that the Respondent Sick Pay Scheme had a waiting period of some three days before payment was made. This created a situation of Employees coming to work, to avoid a financial penalty, while obviously ill and effectively spreading infections through the Workforce. In recent times this issue had become particularly current as the State Statutory Scheme pays from Day One while most Employer Schemes have a Wating period. The issue has been before the WRC and the Labour Court on numerous occasions. The Sick Leave Act of 2022 (Sections 8 &9) allows for an Employer to have a more generally beneficial scheme and thereby maintain a Waiting period. The Complainant was party to a Grievance Investigative Meeting/Examination by Ms JW , ER Manager on the 26th February 2025. Ms Wilson produced a very detailed report on the 20th March 2025 which reaffirmed the Respondent position but noted, in a most positive manner the view of the Complaint and the difficulties the Waiting period was giving rise to.  A further review was to be conducted by Management to see if any alleviation could be put in place.

The Complainant acknowledged warmly the Findings on the 20th March 2025. He thanked Ms Wilsons for her comprehensive efforts. He did not appeal the Outcome.

Separate issues arose over “Early Clocking”. This was investigated by Mr D, and a Disciplinary process was recommended. This was carried out by Mr S. “No further action” was the declared outcome by Mr S although “Counselling” letters were placed on his file. It was important to note that different Mangers were involved and the Respondent assurances, under Oath, that the Sick Pay Grievance issue was not known to the Early Clocking Manager investigation.

The Complainant maintained that the entire process had been “Flawed” due to the involvement of Managers who had a personal vested interest in the outcome. Detailed copies of all meeting minutes were submitted in evidence. The Complainant felt strongly that some of these records/minutes had been selectively edited against him

A meeting under the Short-Term Absence Review “STAR” policy was also carried out on the 8th April 2025. The Respondent follow up letter of the 9th April 2025 indicted a finding of “No Furter Action”. From an Adjudication point of view this was hard to see the above actions as Harassment or Penalisation of the Complainant. “Counselling” notes were added to the Complainant’s file. The exact status of these “notes” in a future Disciplinary context was contested by the Parties

The Complainant gave notice of intended resignation from the Respondent on the 20th April and left on the 7th May 2025.

In his Oral testimony the Complainant outlined his feelings regarding the Respondent as an Employer. He stated on a number of occasions that he had “lost faith” in the Respondent and had been subject to a number of “flawed” processes. After the Sick Pay grievance had had become, in his view a “marked man”. He had a daily commute of some 50 Klms, a lot of which was in heavy traffic and was clearly in his view getting “Stressed”. His Partner was due to give birth in mid-Summer, and he made it clear he did “Not need the grief” that the Respondent was imposing on him.

His “Valedictory” E mail of the 30th April 2025 was most interesting- it did not reflect any bitterness rather a somewhat sorrowful, parting from good colleagues. His message to Management was to “Listen to your people before they become ex-employees”.

His message to fellow employees was

“You deserve better, And I genuinely hope the culture evolves to reflect the incredible work being done shift after shift”.

To the Adjudication Officer, drawing on extensive prior Industrial Relations experience, this message came across as a “Parting of Colleagues” not a forced or pressurised dismissal.

The long daily commute and the prospective changes in his family situation seemed to have been key issues. He presented as a most able employee who possibly found the Respondent structures somewhat “claustrophobic”. He quickly secured new employment.

3:3      Legal precedents quoted.

The Respondent quoted extensively from Precedents – principally Barrett v Dept of Defence EDA 1017 and the Supreme Court in Baranya V Rosderra Meats [2021]. The main point drawn from these Authorities concerned the need to clearly establish “cause and effect” between alleged Employer Actions and alleged “discriminatory” outcomes. The question of the “Burden of Proof” that had to be satisfied by the Complainant to sustain a Discriminatory action was a central argument. The Complainant failed in this regard was the Respondent view.

The Complainant quoted a number of WRC decisions principally UDD2234-O’Sullivan v HSE and Adj-19152 in support of his view that he had been “pressurised” into a resignation

3:4       Summary Adjudication conclusion.

CA- 00071041-001    Organisation of Working Time - Penalisation complaint.

Having considered the robust Oral testimony, the very extensive Written Submissions and considered the Legal precedents quoted it was hard to see how Penalisation and or Harassment arose to any level identified in the Organisation of Working Time,1997 or in Legal precedents.

There was no doubt that the Respondent had a very well developed and possibly bureaucratic set of processes but in no way could they be described as amounting to Penalisation/Harassment.

Regrettably for the Complainant the Complaint has to be deemed Legally Not Well Founded -Discrimination/Harassment/Victimisation was not sufficiently proven.

3:5       CA- 00071041-002 Payment of Wages, 00071041-003 Payment of Wages, CA-00071041-004 Organisation of Working Time, 0071041-005, Organisation of Working Time, 00071041-006 Organisation of Working Time, 00071041-007 Organisation of Working Time.

These complaints all fall into the issues of Public Holiday and Annual leave complaints. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Complainant, by his assiduous research, identified failings in the Respondent systems.

These were accepted by the Respondent and all appropriate payments made to the Complainant albeit post his resignation. Under the Legislation there is little that can be done at this stage. All monies have been properly paid.

 The Complainant in his evidence made it clear that the case was not about pure financial compensation rather seeking to improve the Respondent “employee culture” and staff interactions. In a different time and culture, the Complainant might be regarded as having made a contribution in this regard.

However, in final conclusion, the Complaints, above, as lodged before the WRC have to be deemed Legally Not Well Founded and must fail.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Adjudication Decision

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

CA-00071041-001

Complaint Not Well Founded. Discrimination and Victimisation as defined by the Act, did not occur.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00071041-002

Complaint Not Well Founded

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00071041-003

Complaint Not Well Founded

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

CA-00071041-004

Complaint Not Well Founded

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

CA-00071041-005

Complaint Not Well Founded

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

CA-00071041-006

Complaint Not Well Founded

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

CA-00071041-007

Complaint Not Well Founded

Victimisation, Discrimination, Working Times, Payment of Wages.