Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Daniel  Cummins-Lake

Ces Controlled Services Ltd

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

William Gillman,

Human Resource Consultant

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-00073116-001

04/07/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely.  I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

In response to the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski  -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021 ]IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021), I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice. 

In line with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint, it is open to me to direct that all parties giving oral evidence before me, to swear an oath or make an affirmation as may be appropriate. In the interests of progressing this matter, I confirm that I have, in the circumstances, administered the said Oath/Affirmation as appropriate. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence.

The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on 4th of July 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date from the 5th of January 2025 to the 4h of July 2025.

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case The Complainant provided m with a full submission on the 30th of December 2025 which was preceded by some other documentation attaching to the workplace relations complaint form. All documents have been considered by me The Complainant outlines his complaint as follows:

I am employed full-time on a fixed-term contract, working 12-hour shifts Monday to Thursday (7:00 AM – 7:00 PM). When a public holiday falls on a Monday — a regular working day for me — I am paid for only 8 hours, despite my normal daily hours being 12.

Section 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 entitles an employee who does not work on a public holiday to a normal day’s wages. In my case, this should be 12 hours. However, my contract states: “Bank holidays are paid at hourly rate x 8 hours”, which confirms that I am underpaid each time a public holiday falls on a Monday.

I have raised this matter repeatedly with the company since early 2025. Despite this, the issue has been repeatedly deferred, minimised, or dismissed. The company’s position is that a 25% uplift to my hourly rate covers this entitlement, but there is no transparent or itemised breakdown in the contract to support this. I have also been told the issue will be dealt with in a general policy update in August 2025 — months after the most recent breaches.

I do not accept that this uplift lawfully replaces a specific statutory entitlement to a normal day’s pay for a public holiday. My attempts to resolve this amicably have been ignored or sidestepped over several months.

While the financial shortfall is relatively small (approx. €146.32 per affected public holiday), the moral principle and legal compliance are significant. I am requesting that the WRC issue a directive requiring the employer to comply with Section 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act and pay public holiday wages correctly for any future or affected employees.

The Complainant outlined his case by way of evidence given on Affirmation.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. He had to establish that there was a question to be answered.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent had full representation at this hearing. The Respondent entity was further represented by the financial Controller Mr.MN who gave evidence on behalf of the company. The Respondent provided me with a submission on the 30th of December 2025. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. All evidence was heard following an Affirmation.

The Respondent rejects that there has been any contravention of Section 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

I have carefully listened to the evidence adduced. The Complainant commenced his employment on the 27th of January 2025.

The terms of the Contract are crystal clear. The Complainant worked a 48-hour week over the course of four days. These days did not rotate. The Complainant consistently worked a twelve hour shift every Monday, every Tuesday every, Wednesday and every Thursday.

The Complainant was paid at a set rate of €36.58 per hour. I do note that the Employer stated in the letter of offer that the rate was inclusive of a 25% uplift for day shift. It was not readily obvious to me what this meant. The Complainant was working day shifts albeit long days. There was some suggestion that this might cover Sunday premium which may be the case, but this did not affect the Complainant who only ever worked Monday through Thursday.

I am satisfied that the Complainant’s weekly gross salary must have been in the region of €1,756.00 each week of work.

However, on the weeks that there was a Bank Holiday Monday the Complainant was paid €146.00 less than usual as the Company policy was to pay for an 8-hour day to cover Bank Holidays.

The rationale for this was not satisfactorily explained to me and the company seemed unbothered by the fact that their employee was out of pocket on weeks where’re as statutorily recognised Bank Holiday fell.

It seems to me that the Statute does not intend that a person will be financially worse off by reason of a Bank Holiday.

The Section reads

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 her employer determines, namely—

(a) a paid day off on that day,

I am not persuaded that anything in the Act allows the Employer to nominate an amount to be paid which is different to the pay to which an employee is ordinarily entitled to be paid for a full day’s work.

It should be noted that the imperative of the Statute overrides whatever provision is contained in the Employment Contract which seeks to limit the Complainant’s entitlements.

I note that the Employer herein has taken on the Complainant’s concerns more generally and that revised Contracts of Employment have been introduced into the workplace. This does not effect the Complainant who moved on in June of 2025.

I note that there were five Bank Holiday Mondays int the cognizable period.

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

CA-00073116-001 – The complaint herein is well-founded and I require that the employer pays to the employee compensation in the amount of €750.00 as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances but not exceeding 2 years remuneration.