LCR23172

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00051973 (CA-00063756, IR-SC-00002701)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 10th Jan 2025

in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 21st October 2024 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

1. “The Employer should pay the Worker compensation of €1,000, equivalent of six months loss of the claimed paid break.
2. The Worker should accept the current contracted hours of a 9 am to 5 pm daily shift, without the paid break.
3. The Employer should not attempt to recover any overpayment resulting from the past scheduling administration error and should desist from any implied threat to do so.”

   A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th June 2025.

DECISION:

The Appeal

This is an appeal by the Worker from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (IR-SC-00002701, dated 21 October 2024) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Court heard the appeal in Cork on 11 June 2025.

Factual Background

The Worker was promoted to the permanent non-shift position of Systems Support Specialist by DAA Plc (‘the Company’) on 1 January 2021 on a salary of €80,000.00 per annum. She has been employed by the Company since 3 April 2000 and had entered a permanent, full-time contract as a Communications Assistant on 19 September 2003.

The vacancy for the position of Systems Support Specialist had been advertised by the Company under Staff Notice 26/2020 as a permanent, full-time position governed by a personal contract, not collective terms and conditions. The Worker was initially seconded to this position.

Following her promotion to her current position, the Worker signed a new contract of employment. The contract is dated 5 January 2021 and states at paragraph 5:

“Your normal working week will be 40 hours per week in accordance with the provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 (‘the 1997 Act’).

Worker’s Submission

The Worker submits that during the period January 2021 to December 2023 she had worked from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm in her new role and had understood that her 40-hour contract included a paid break until this arrangement was terminated by the Company in December 2023. In the Worker’s submission, the aforementioned arrangement had become established as an implied term of her contract by custom and practice.

Company Submission

It is submitted on behalf of the Company that the Worker signed a permanent contract of employment on 5 January 2021 that provides that her hours of work are 40 hours per week. It is further submitted that the Worker was appointed to her current position on a personal contract basis rather than to a role the terms and conditions of which are collectively bargained. That Court was advised that all personal contract holders employed for the company work and are paid for 40 hours per week and on site for 45 hours per week i.e. their breaks are unpaid.

It came to light in December 2023, in the Company’s submission, that the Worker had been incorrectly left on a 9.00 am to 5.00 pm schedule after her permanent appointment to the new role in January 2021 and that that error had resulted in an overpayment of €30,102.00 to the Worker which the Company has not sought to recoup.

Discussion and Decision

In the Court’s view, the 40-hour per week clause in the Worker’s contract is clear and unambiguous; it makes no provision for paid breaks. Furthermore, the Court does not accept the Worker’s argument that an inadvertent error on the Company’s part has the effect of amending her contract of employment to her benefit and the Company’s detriment on the basis of custom and practice or at all. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Worker’s claim is not well-founded. The Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
CC	______________________
05 AUGUST 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.