DWT2618

WTC/25/92

DECISION  NO.  DWT2618

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

Chairman:	Ms. McGowan
Employer Member:	Mr. Marie
Worker Member:	Ms. Hannick

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00058893 (CA-00071575-001).

BACKGROUND:

The Employee appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court on the 25 November 2025.

A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 31 July 2026.

The following is the Labour Court's Decision:

DECISION:

1. Appeal Details

This is an appeal by Mr Brian Murphy against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00058893/CA-00071575-001) made under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the Act) in a complaint against Road Safety Operations Ireland trading as GoSafe. The Adjudication Officer’s decision, dated 25 November 2025, found that the complaint was not well founded.

For ease, the parties are referred to in this Decision in the same way as at first instance so Mr Murphy is referred to as “the Complainant” and Road Safety Operations Ireland trading as GoSafe as “the Respondent”.

A hearing of the Court was held on 31 July 2026 in Dublin. The Complainant was not represented or accompanied at the hearing. The Respondent was represented by Ms Keevagh Heverin from Ibec. The Court received written submissions from both parties in advance of the hearing. The oath was administered to the Complainant at the commencement of the hearing, so submissions made orally were treated as evidence under oath which could be subject to cross examination. The Respondent did not call any witnesses.

2. Summary of the Complainant’s Submission and Evidence

The Complainant’s position was that the Respondent incorrectly applies the provisions of section 21(1) of the Act in respect of public holidays. He identified two specific issues: first when a day of annual leave is applied for and granted after the Complainant has been rostered to work a public holiday the Respondent pays for the annual leave and an additional day’s pay in accordance with section 21(1)(d) and deducts a day from annual leave. The Complainant considers that a paid day’s leave in accordance with section 21(1)(a) is the correct entitlement. He considers that an additional day’s pay under section 21(1)(d) cannot be applicable to the “bank holiday entitlement as there are no hours attached to it” and where his contract of employment provides that “annual leave is exclusive of the statutory bank holidays”. The second issue arose when on Christmas Day a person who is rostered but not required to work has their shift moved by the Respondent to another day on the schedule. The Complainant says that “rest days on a roster are regarded as contractual and cannot be moved unfairly unless both Parties agree to it” and that “the company simply cannot just move a rostered work day to a rest day because it’s a bank holiday which they do on Xmas day”. The Complainant submitted that the provisions of section 21(6) mean that the entitlement in respect of “any day on which an employee is not required to work” is for a paid day off in accordance with section 21(1)(a).

The Complainant maintains that the Respondent’s pre-determination of the entitlement of employees in respect of public holidays is contrary to its obligation under section 21(1) of the Act to determine which entitlement the employee should receive.

In evidence, the Complainant was brought through each of the public holidays which fell during the cognisable period. These were Christmas Day and St Stephen’s Day in 2024, and in 2025: New Year’s Day, the first Monday in February (which fell on 3 February 2025), St Patrick’s Day, Easter Monday (which fell on 21 April 2025), and the first Monday in May (which fell on 5 May 2025).

The Complainant’s evidence was that he worked on St Stephen’s Day, New Year’s Day, the first Monday in February, St Patrick’s Day, and the first Monday in May and that he received an additional day’s pay for doing so. The Complainant did not work on Easter Monday and received a paid day off on that day. He did not allege any breach of the Act in respect of those days. In respect of Christmas Day 2024 the Complainant said he had been rostered to work but was not required to work because other people volunteered to cover his shift. The Complainant said that he received a day’s pay for Christmas Day. He objected to the way in which the Respondent treated him in respect of that public holiday and considered that the Respondent acted in breach of section 21 of the Act.

3. Summary of the Respondent’s Submission

The Respondent set out that it was a business contracted by An Garda Siochána, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, to provide and operate safety cameras in Ireland, which cameras are deployed in high-visibility vehicles primarily on stretches of roads where there is a history of collisions. The service was provided on a 24 hour basis and involved the checking of the speed of over 2.5 million vehicles per month. The safety cameras are operated by training Monitoring Operators of which the Complainant was one.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 28 June 2021 on a fixed-term contract before signing a permanent contract of employment dated 25 February 2022. The Complainant’s contract requires him to work days, evenings, nights, weekends and public holidays as part of his normal roster.

The Respondent noted a background of engagement, in March 2025, with the Complainant where the Complainant raised multiple issues regarding how the Respondent dealt with public holidays and payments in respect of same. He raised specific issues regarding deduction of time from annual leave when annual leave is taken on a public holiday. The Respondent responded to the issues by confirming that it acted in compliance with the Act in respect of public holidays.

The Respondent submitted that it had fully discharged its obligations to the Complainant pursuant to section 21 of the Act. The Respondent noted that the Complainant’s contract of employment in respect of public holidays provides: “The Company reserves the right to require you to work on a public holiday, in return for which you shall be paid double time”. The Respondent’s Employee Handbook provides, in respect of public holidays, that: “If you are rostered to work on a public holiday and wish to take it as a day of leave you are required to request this day using the normal leave booking procedure. This will be paid as 8* hours holiday pay and 8* hours public holiday. A holiday day will be deducted from your annual leave entitlement.” [* The Respondent submitted that the 8 hours was an error and in fact 9 hours was paid in respect of holiday pay and public holiday pay. The Complainant did not dispute this.]

The Respondent submitted that where the Complainant was rostered to work a public holiday but took annual leave on the day of the public holiday he was paid for a day’s holiday and a further day’s pay for the public holiday. Where the Complainant was not rostered to work a public holiday he received a paid day off on that day. Where the Complainant worked a public holiday he was paid double time. Payslips were provided evidencing this, albeit none of the payslips were in respect of the cognisable period, but the Respondent submitted that they reflected its practice which it said was in compliance with the Act.

The Respondent submitted that its decision to pay an additional day’s pay in respect of public holidays accords with the provisions of section 21 of the Act which provides that “an employee shall, in respect of a Public Holiday, be entitled to whichever ONE of the following his employer determines…” The Respondent disputes the Complainant’s interpretation that the section imposes an obligation on the employer to provide more than one option.

4. Relevant Legislation

The interpretation section of the Act (section 2(1)), sets out definitions of “employee”, “employer” and “leave year”, the relevant elements of which are set out below.

“Employee” is defined as meaning: “a person of any age who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment and references, in relation to an employer, to an employee shall be construed as references to an employee employed by that employer, …”

Employer, in relation to an employee, means: “the person with whom the employee has entered into or for whom the employee works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment, …”.

Entitlement in respect of public holidays is dealt with in section 21 of the Act which provides at section 21(1) that:

“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,

(b) a paid day off within a month of that day,

(c) an additional day of annual leave,

(d) an additional day’s pay:

provided that if the day on which a public holiday falls is a day on which the employee would, apart from this subsection, be entitled to a paid day off this subsection shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted therefrom.”

Section 21(6) of the Act states:

“For the avoidance of doubt, the reference in the proviso to subsection (1) to a day on which the employee is entitled to a paid day off includes a reference to any day on which he or she is not required to work, the pay to which he or she is entitled in respect of a week or other period being regarded, for this purpose, as receivable by him in respect of the day or days in that period on which he or she is not required to work as well as the day or days in that period on which he or she is required to work.”

5. Deliberations

It was not disputed that the Complainant was an employee, and the Respondent was his employer at the material time in accordance with the definitions set out in the Act.

The Complainant submitted his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 14 May 2025 so the cognisable period for consideration is from 15 November 2024 to 14 May 2025. There was no application made for an extension of time.

While the Complainant submitted his complaint using the language of a trade dispute and maintained that the issue in respect of public holidays affected all 96 monitoring operators employed by the Respondent, it was made clear during the course of the hearing that the Court would only be considering the complaint in respect of specific alleged breaches of the Act affecting the Complainant during the cognisable period.

The Complainant accepted that there was no breach of the Act in respect of the public holidays he worked on St Stephen’s Day, New Year’s Day, the first Monday in February, St Patrick’s Day, and the first Monday in May nor in respect of Easter Monday where he received a paid day off. The Complainant’s issue in respect of being granted annual leave on a day when he was rostered to work a public holiday did not arise during the cognisable period so does not fall to be considered by the Court.

The only alleged breach outstanding, alleged by the Complainant, was in respect of how the Respondent treated the public holiday which fell on Christmas Day. The Complainant had originally been rostered to work Christmas Day but because of a policy in the Respondent, which it deems to be family friendly, other people volunteered to work the Complainant’s shift and he was no longer required to do so. There was no dispute on the evidence between the parties as to the event surrounding Christmas Day. The Respondent accepts that the hours the Complainant was originally rostered to work on Christmas Day were moved to another day where he was not rostered (a rest day as termed by the Complainant). In respect of Christmas Day the Complainant was then given a paid day off for that day. The Complainant’s objection was in respect of the Respondent’s entitlement to unilaterally move a rostered workday to a rest day. That is not a matter for the Court to consider. The Court is required only to consider whether the Respondent breached the Act in respect of how it treated Christmas Day as a public holiday in respect of the Complainant.

The Complainant accepts that he received a paid day off for Christmas Day 2024 and that he did not work on that day. Section 21(1) of the Act sets out the alternative entitlements available to an employee in respect of a public holiday, one of which at (a) includes a paid day off on the day of the public holiday. Section 21(1) expressly provides that the alternative available to the employee shall be whichever “his or her employer determines”. The section does not require an individual assessment to be carried out in respect of each public holiday and/or each individual employee in order for the employer to determine which alternative to select. It is not disputed that the Respondent has pre-determined how public holidays will be dealt with in respect of its employees and that this is set out both in individual contracts of employment and in the Respondent’s employee handbook. The Complainant did not provide any legal basis to support his suggestion that pre-determination was prohibited under section 21(1) and the Court does not accept that an employer determining alternatives prohibits pre-determination. The Respondent is not required to pre-determine how it will treat public holidays for employees but the Court does not consider that making such pre-determination in any way breaches the provisions of section 21(1) of the Act.

The Respondent determined that when an employee did not work a public holiday, they would be entitled to a paid day off on that day. This was communicated to employees in both their contracts of employment and in the Respondent’s employee handbook. In respect of Christmas Day 2024 the Complainant was not required to work but was paid for the day. The Court finds that this complies with the Respondent's obligations under section 21(1)(a) of the Act. No breach of the Act has been identified by the Complainant notwithstanding his dissatisfaction with the approach taken by the Respondent in respect of Christmas Day.

6. Decision

The Court is satisfied that, during the cognisable period, there was no breach by the Respondent of section 21 of the Act in respect of the Complainant.

The Court affirms the decision of the Adjudication Officer, bearing adjudication reference number ADJ-00058893 and complaint reference number CA-00071575-001, which found the Complainant’s complaint to be not well founded.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Niamh McGowan
TH	______________________
13/10/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be in writing and addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.