Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Syed Mubbasher Ali  Shah

Mooretown Farm Limited

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Peter Dunlea Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00072152-004

05/06/2025

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

CA-00072152-005

05/06/2025

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent to work on a farm until 5 June 2025. On that date he referred complaints to the WRC claiming that he had been required to work excessive hours, that he was owed outstanding wages, and that he did not receive any additional payment or compensatory benefit in respect of Sunday work.

The Respondent disputed the Complainant’s claims in their entirety. It was confirmed at the hearing that the Respondent did not maintain working time records for the Complainant.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent to work on a farm. The Complainant submitted that the Respondent represented to him that the role involved a 39-hour working week. He stated that he accepted the position on that basis, as he was seeking employment that would provide a better work-life balance.

The Complainant stated that in practice he regularly worked approximately 65 hours per week and that this level of working time was typical during the course of his employment.

The Complainant submitted that he was paid €1,307 per fortnight, which he said reflected payment for 39 hours per week. He gave evidence that he worked approximately 240 hours beyond his contracted hours and calculated that he was owed approximately €3,000-€3,200 in respect of those additional hours.

The Complainant also gave evidence that he worked four Sundays in April 2025 and that he did not receive any additional payment or compensatory benefit in respect of Sunday work.

The Complainant stated that the hours worked resulted in significant fatigue and that he felt he had little work-life balance during the course of his employment. He stated that in June 2025, when he requested time off, his employment was terminated.

The Complainant submitted that he had not been properly compensated for the hours worked and that the Respondent had failed to comply with its obligations under employment legislation.

The Respondent disputed the Complainant’s claims.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was engaged on the basis of a 39-hour working week and that he had been paid in accordance with the terms of his employment.

The Respondent asserted that the Complainant had been informed that he would work more than 39 hours per week in practice.

The Respondent also stated that the Complainant was paid for the hours that he worked and that his salary was €34,000 per annum.

The Respondent did not produce any documentary evidence of the hours worked by the Complainant.

In response to questions from the Adjudication Officer, the Respondent confirmed that it did not track the Complainant’s hours of work and did not maintain working time records. The Respondent further confirmed that the Complainant’s contract of employment did not refer to or provide for a Sunday premium or compensation and that the Complainant was not paid any additional payment or compensatory benefit for working on Sundays.

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted by the Complainant, the oral evidence adduced at the hearing, and the oral submissions made by and on behalf of the parties.

CA-00072152-004: Payment of Wages Act 1991

The complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the “1991 Act”) concerns the Complainant’s claim that he worked substantially longer hours than those for which he was remunerated.

Section 1 of the 1991 Act defines wages as any sums payable to an employee by an employer in connection with his employment.

Section 5 of the 1991 Act regulates deductions from wages. Section 5(6) provides that where wages paid are less than the amount properly payable, the deficiency shall be treated as a deduction.

In Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55, the High Court confirmed that when considering a complaint under the 1991 Act, the decision-maker must first establish what wages were properly payable to the employee before determining whether a deduction has occurred within the meaning of the 1991 Act.

The evidence before me was that the Complainant was engaged on the basis of a 39-hour working week, although no copy of the written contract or statement of terms of employment was produced at the hearing.

The Complainant gave evidence that he regularly worked approximately 65 hours per week and that he was paid wages which reflected a 39-hour working week.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant was paid for the hours that he worked, but also stated that the Complainant’s salary was €34,000 per annum. No explanation was provided as to how those two propositions could be reconciled and no records were produced demonstrating the hours worked or how the Complainant’s pay was calculated. The Respondent’s representative also confirmed that no written contract, statement of terms of employment or records of hours worked were available to furnish to the WRC.

In circumstances where the Respondent failed to maintain records of the hours worked and where the Respondent’s evidence was inconsistent and unsupported by documentary records, I attach limited weight to the Respondent’s evidence.

In contrast, I found the Complainant’s evidence regarding the hours worked to be clear and consistent, and I prefer that evidence.

I am satisfied that the Complainant worked substantially longer hours than those for which he was remunerated.

In those circumstances, I find that the wages paid were less than the amount properly payable within the meaning of section 5(6) of the 1991 Act, and that this constituted an unlawful deduction within the meaning of the Act.

Accordingly, I find that the complaint under the 1991 Act is well founded.

CA-00072152-005: Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

Scope of the Complaint

The complaint form submitted to the WRC indicated a complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1997 Act”) and the Sunday premium box was selected.

The narrative section of the complaint form, which appeared under the complaint brought pursuant to the 1991 Act, referred to the Complainant working approximately 65 hours per week notwithstanding that he understood that he was engaged to work a 39-hour working week.

The written complaint therefore clearly raised an issue concerning excessive working hours, in addition to the issue of Sunday work, and the evidence given at the hearing addressed both matters.

The complaint form used by the WRC is not a statutory pleading and must be interpreted having regard to the substance of the matters raised rather than the precise boxes selected. The High Court in County Louth VEC v Equality Tribunal [2009] IEHC 370 emphasised that tribunal procedures should not be approached with undue technicality.

In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the matters properly before me include both the issue of excessive weekly working hours and the issue of Sunday work.

Analysis of the Evidence

The Complainant gave evidence that he regularly worked approximately 65 hours per week.

The Respondent confirmed that the hours worked by the Complainant were not tracked and that no working time records were maintained or available to furnish to the WRC.

Section 25 of the 1997 Act requires employers to maintain records demonstrating compliance with the 1997 Act. In circumstances where the Respondent failed to maintain the statutory records required under section 25, the Respondent was not in a position to discharge the burden of demonstrating compliance with the statutory limits on working time.

Section 15 of the 1997 Act provides that an employer shall not permit an employee to work more than 48 hours on average per week calculated over the relevant reference period.

The Complainant gave his evidence in a clear and straightforward manner and I found him to be a credible witness. His evidence regarding the hours worked remained consistent throughout the hearing. In contrast, the Respondent’s evidence on this issue was inconsistent and unsupported by documentary records.

In circumstances where the Respondent failed to maintain the statutory working time records required under section 25 of the 1997 Act, and where the Respondent’s account was unsupported by documentary evidence, I prefer the evidence of the Complainant regarding the hours worked.

I am therefore satisfied that the Respondent permitted the Complainant to work in excess of the statutory limits provided for under section 15 of the 1997 Act.

The Complainant also gave evidence that he was required to work four Sundays in April 2025 and that he did not receive any additional payment or compensatory benefit in respect of Sunday work. The Respondent denied that the Complainant was required to work four Sundays, stating that he worked every other Sunday in April 2025.

Section 14 of the 1997 Act provides that where an employee is required to work on a Sunday, the employee’s remuneration must take account of that fact.

The Respondent did not produce working time records or any evidence demonstrating that the Complainant’s remuneration included a Sunday premium or other compensatory arrangement. In fact, the Respondent’s evidence was clear – the Complainant was not paid a Sunday premium and no compensatory arrangements were in place for Sunday work.

I am therefore satisfied that the Respondent has not demonstrated compliance with section 14 of the 1997 Act.

Accordingly, I find that the complaints under the 1997 Act are well founded.

CA-00072152-004: Payment of Wages Act 1991

For the reasons set out above, I decide that the within complaint is well founded and, in accordance with section 6 of the 1991 Act, I direct the Respondent to pay compensation to the Complainant of €3,000 less any lawful statutory deductions.

CA-00072152-005: Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

For the reasons set out above, I decide that the within complaint is well founded.

In determining the appropriate level of compensation, I have had regard to the nature and seriousness of the breaches established in this case, including the Respondent’s failure to maintain the statutory working time records required under section 25 of the 1997 Act, the excessive hours worked by the Complainant in breach of section 15 of the 1997 Act, and the failure to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of section 14 of the 1997 Act relating to Sunday work.

I am guided by the decision of the Labour Court in Ana Lacramioara Manciu v Stablefield Limited, wherein the Court stated that:

“…having determined that the Respondent was in contravention of the Act the Court is obliged to take account of the loss incurred by the Complainant… The Court is not satisfied that recompense by a simple formulaic application of an hourly rate to the difference between the maximum of 48 hours per week permitted by the Act and the actual hours worked is appropriate, as the Act provides that such hours should not be worked in the first place.

The Court determines that payment of compensation to the Complainant for what the Court is satisfied was a conscious breach of the Complainant’s rights under s. 15 of the Act is the most appropriate means of dealing with this matter.”

The Labour Court further noted that compensation must be just and equitable and must ensure that sanctions for breaches of EU law rights are effective, proportionate and dissuasive, as established in Von Colson v Kamann (1984) ECR 1891.

The Labour Court has also recognised that the provisions of the 1997 Act and the Directive on which it is based constitute important health and safety protections for employees.

Having regard to the nature, duration and extent of the breach of section 15 of the 1997 Act, together with the failure to provide compensation for Sunday working in breach of section 14 of the 1997 Act, I consider that compensation in the amount of €3,500 is appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 27 of the 1997 Act, I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €3,500, which I deem to be just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances. This compensation is in respect of breaches of the 1997 Act and is not subject to tax.