ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053441

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Chandan Kumar Mandal	Alipam Limited t/a Camile Galway

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	{text}	{text}

Representatives

Enda Callanan Keogh's Accountancy Group

Complaints:

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-00064954-001	23/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00064954-002	23/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00064954-003	23/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00064954-004	23/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012	CA-00064954-005	23/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00064954-006	23/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 15 of the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006 - S.I. No. 507 of 2006	CA-00064954-007	23/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00064954-008	23/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946	CA-00064954-009	23/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946	CA-00064954-010	23/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18A of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00064954-011	23/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00064954-012	23/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00064954-015	23/07/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00064954-016	23/07/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/12/2024, 14/03/2025 & 15/09/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints. Parties were advised in advance of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted. The hearing was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Where submissions from parties were received they were exchanged. The complainant gave evidence under affirmation and for the respondent Mr Michael Hughes Owner took affirmation but did not give evidence and Enda Callanan Keogh Accountancy Group also attended as the respondent’s representative. Parties engaged in discussions in attempts to resolve matters but the complainant requested that a hearing proceed and there was no attendance by the respondent at the rescheduled hearing of 15/09/2025.

Background:

The complainant submitted that he did not receive premium for Sunday working, did not receive monies properly payable, worked excessive hours, was not in the correct band of hours, did not get annual leave, public holidays and was left with no alternative but to resign his position owing to the actions of the respondent.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00064954-001

The complainant submitted that he commenced on 07/03/2021 and his employment ended on 31/03/2024, he was head chef and his gross weekly was €705. The respondent’s name was Alipam Limited as per the wage slips and he was a hard-working person and loyal to his employer. He had received awards in college for education and follows the rules of the country. The respondent was owned by 3 partners and the complainant was given a verbal offer of employment that included a double bedroom house and he paid the respondent rent of €300 and he was to receive €40,000 salary and €3,000 in cash. The complainant’s experience was he was not given what he was promised and by providing staff accommodation meant he was called to work whenever the respondent called him. The respondent tried to renegotiate the rent money looking for €1000 monthly despite the agreement of €300 and the complainant had to pay then €450. Working hours were not what was agreed and the respondent failed to pay him on time and the complainant looked for his monies but was not given them. Payslips were regularly not given and public holidays and annual leave was not paid and he was left with no alternative but to resign his position. He received a message on 16/08/2024 from Mr A saying that the complainant would be done for fraud after submitting the complaint to the WRC. The building was too cold where the complainant had to work and his back was sore from this and the fire alarm did not go off when there was a fire at the building and there was a broken and unsafe fridge. Staff started to leave because wages were not received on time.

The complainant’s evidence for this specific complaint was that he worked 13 Sundays and confirmed that his contract referenced that his salary included Sunday premium as it sets out

“Your gross weekly salary, combined with your free staff meal allowance, includes a premium for Sunday work, which you are entitled to under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

There was no cross examination by the respondent of his evidence.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00064954-001

A hearing scheduled for 06/12/2024 and 14/03/2025 was adjourned and the respondent did not attend the rescheduled hearing of 15/09/2025.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00064954-001

I note that the respondent did not attend the hearing of 15/09/2025 and I find their failure to attend unexplained. The complainant submits that he did not receive premium for working Sundays. It was submitted that the respondent’s name was Alipam Limited as per the wage slips and there were no objections to change the name and the respondent was not prejudiced by same and I amend the name accordingly.

Section 14 of the Act provides that Sunday work: supplemental provisions.

14.—(1) An employee who is required to work on a Sunday (and the fact of his or her having to work on that day has not otherwise been taken account of in the determination of his or her pay) shall be compensated by his or her employer for being required so to work by the following means, namely—

(a) by the payment to the employee of an allowance of such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(b) by otherwise increasing the employee’s rate of pay by such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(c) by granting the employee such paid time off from work as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(d) by a combination of two or more of the means referred to in the preceding paragraphs.

I note that the complainant confirmed in his evidence and as noted in his contract that for Sunday Premium

“Your gross weekly salary, combined with your free staff meal allowance, includes a premium for Sunday work, which you are entitled to under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

In all the circumstances, therefore, I find that the complainant’s salary provided for Sundays worked and I find that the complaint is not well founded and dismiss the complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00064954-002

The complainant’s evidence for this specific complaint was that he was due €2,000 and that this was to be a nett payment and the complainant would not have the responsibility for tax. He said he received a letter from the respondent confirming this dated 28/03/2024 and sent messages regularly to Mr A about the payment and that the respondent threatened he would be reported to the gardaí. There was no cross examination by the respondent of his evidence.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00064954-002

A hearing scheduled for 06/12/2024 and 14/03/2025 was adjourned and the respondent did not attend the rescheduled hearing of 15/09/2025.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00064954-002

The respondent did not attend the hearing of 15/09/2025 and I find his failure to attend unexplained. It was submitted that the respondent’s name was Alipam Limited as per the wage slips and there were no objections to change the name and the respondent was not prejudiced by same and I amend the name accordingly.

The complainant submits that he is owed €2,000 nett as monies properly payable and provided a letter from the respondent setting out same as well as a message the complainant sent to the respondent outlining this money was owed.

Section (6) provides that where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee, then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

For a breach of the Act to occur, the wages must be properly payable within the cognisable period and I note that the complaint was received on 23/07/2024 and employment ended on 31/03/2024.

In Sullivan v Department of Education PW 2/1997 (reported at [1998] E.L.R. 217) it was held that

“if an employee does not receive what is properly payable to him or her from the outset then this can amount to a deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act”.

The complainant’s undisputed evidence was that during the cognisable period monies are owed and I find that the complaint is well founded and that the monies properly payable are €2,000 nett for wages.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00064954-003

The complainant withdrew this complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00064954-004

The complainant’s evidence for this specific complaint was that his average weekly hours amounted to 43 or 44 hours. There was no cross examination by the respondent of his evidence.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00064954-004

A hearing scheduled for 06/12/2024 and 14/03/2025 was adjourned and the respondent did not attend the rescheduled hearing of 15/09/2025.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00064954-004

The complainant submitted he worked in excess of 48 hours and in his direct evidence he confirmed that the average was less than 48 hours. It was submitted that the respondent’s name was Alipam Limited as per the wage slips and there were no objections to change the name and the respondent was not prejudiced by same and I amend the name accordingly.

Section 15 sets out

15.—(1) An employer shall not permit an employee to work, in each period of 7 days, more than an average of 48 hours, that is to say an average of 48 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a “reference period ”) that does not exceed—

(a) 4 months, or

(b) 6 months—

(i) in the case of an employee employed in an activity referred to in paragraph 2, point 2.1. of Article 17 of the Council Directive, or

(ii) where due to any matter referred to in section 5, it would not be practicable (if a reference period not exceeding 4 months were to apply in relation to the employee) for the employer to comply with this subsection,

(c) such length of time as, in the case of an employee employed in an activity mentioned in subsection (5), is specified in a collective agreement referred to in that subsection.

As the complainant’s direct evidence was that his average weekly hours amounted to 43 or 44 hours, I find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00064954-005

This complaint was withdrawn.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00064954-006

The complainant’s evidence for this specific complaint was he did not take annual leave in 2021, took 5 days in 2022, took 20 days annual leave in 2023 and did not take annual leave in 2024. There was no cross examination by the respondent of his evidence.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00064954-006

A hearing scheduled for 06/12/2024 and 14/03/2025 was adjourned and the respondent did not attend the rescheduled hearing of 15/09/2025.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00064954-006

The complaints were received by the WRC on 23/07/2024 and therefore, the cognisable period for the complaint is 24/01/2024 until 23/07/2024 and employment ended on 31/03/2024. I do not find that the complainant has advanced reasonable cause to extend the cognisable period for annual leave accrued in periods prior to this time. It was submitted that the respondent’s name was Alipam Limited as per the wage slips and there were no objections to change the name and the respondent was not prejudiced by same and I amend the name accordingly.

Entitlement to annual leave.

19.—(1) Subject to the First Schedule (which contains transitional provisions in respect of the leave years 1996 to 1998), an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this Act referred to as “annual leave”) equal to—

(a) 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment),

(b) one-third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours, or

(c) 8 per cent. of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks):

During the cognisable period the complainant’s evidence was that he did not receive any of his annual leave entitlement and I find that the complainant did not receive his 20 days leave on the termination of his employment and I find that that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant €2,820.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00064954-007

This complaint was withdrawn.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00064954-008

The complainant submitted that he commenced on 07/03/2021 and his employment ended on 31/03/2024, he was head chef and his gross weekly was €705 The respondent’s name was Alipam Limited as per the wage slips and he was a hard-working person and loyal to his employer. He had received awards in college for education and follows the rules of the country. The respondent was owned by 3 partners and the complainant was given a verbal offer of employment that included a double bedroom house and he paid the respondent rent of €300 and he was to receive €40,000 salary and €3,000 in cash. The complainant’s experience was he was not given what he was promised and by providing staff accommodation meant he was called to work whenever the respondent called him. The respondent tried to renegotiate the rent money looking for €1000 monthly despite the agreement of €300 and the complainant had to pay then €450. Working hours were not what was agreed and the respondent failed to pay him on time and the complainant looked for his monies but was not given them. Payslips were regularly not given and public holidays and annual leave was not paid and he was left with no alternative but to resign his position. He received a message on 16/08/2024 from Mr A saying that the complainant would be done for fraud after submitting the complaint to the WRC. The building was too cold where the complainant had to work and his back was sore from this and the fire alarm did not go off when there was a fire at the building and there was a broken and unsafe fridge. Staff started to leave because wages were not received on time.

The complainant’s evidence for this specific complaint was that he did not receive public holidays for 3 public holidays that he worked in 2024, namely in lieu of January 1, February 1, March 17. There was no cross examination by the respondent of his evidence.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00064954-008

A hearing scheduled for 06/12/2024 and 14/03/2025 was adjourned and the respondent did not attend the rescheduled hearing of 15/09/2025.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00064954-008

The complainant’s evidence was that he did not receive public holidays for 3 public holidays that he worked in 2024, namely in lieu of January 1, February 1, March 17. It was submitted that the respondent’s name was Alipam Limited as per the wage slips and there were no objections to change the name and the respondent was not prejudiced by same and I amend the name accordingly.

The applicable law provides that :

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,

(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 the 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.

It would appear from the uncontested evidence of the complainant that he did not receive the benefit for 3 public holidays and therefore I find that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant €425.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00064954-009

This complaint was withdrawn.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00064954-010

This complaint was withdrawn.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00064954-011

The complainant’s evidence for this specific complaint was that he was not placed on the appropriate band of hours. There was no cross examination by the respondent of his evidence.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00064954-011

A hearing scheduled for 06/12/2024 and 14/03/2025 was adjourned and the respondent did not attend the rescheduled hearing of 15/09/2025.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00064954-011

The complainant submitted that his contracted provided for a 39-hour contract and that he should have been placed on a band of hours. It was submitted that the respondent’s name was Alipam Limited as per the wage slips and there were no objections to change the name and the respondent was not prejudiced by same and I amend the name accordingly.

It is set out under Section 18A

….—(1) Where an employee’s contract of employment or statement of terms of employment does not reflect the number of hours worked per week by an employee over a reference period, the employee shall be entitled to be placed in a band of weekly working hours specified in the Table to this section.

(2) In accordance with subsection (1), where an employee believes that he or she is entitled to be placed in a band of weekly working hours, he or she shall inform the employer and request, in writing, to be so placed.

I find that the complainant’s contract set out his working hours as 39 hours per week and did not request to be placed in a band of weekly working hours and I find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00064954-012

The complainant’s evidence for this specific complaint that he had to leave his employment owing to the behaviour of the respondent. He did hard work and showed respect to people enjoyed working in Galway but would not trust people anymore at work as his employer was not a good employer and he tried to change the agreement regarding rent for staff accommodation of €300 monthly to €1,000 and that the complainant could not afford to pay this and had to settle to pay him €450. There was an expectation to work whenever the respondent wanted him to work and his wages were not always paid on time. Staff turnover was high and the negative work environment and conditions impacted him. Despite requesting the respondent to talk with him and resolve matters, the respondent would not and it was a very cold place and there were fire safety concerns including a fire and the complainant was blamed for this. The complainant had to attend his doctor because of the circumstances. The respondent wanted to get the complainant to leave. . After several messages and requests to have a meeting he never replied and the complainant sent a message to the respondent that he was resigning the following month. He secured employment and his nett loss amounts to €2,845. There was no cross examination by the respondent of his evidence.

Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00064954-012

A hearing scheduled for 06/12/2024 and 14/03/2025 was adjourned and the respondent did not attend the rescheduled hearing of 15/09/2025.

Findings and Conclusions: CA-00064954-012

The complainant submits that he made numerous complaints to the respondent regarding his working conditions and requested a meeting with the respondent to discuss matters, failures for wages to be paid on time, the respondent renegotiating rent that had been agreed upon, that the respondent would not engage and the complainant believed the respondent wished the complainant to resign. It was submitted that the respondent’s name was Alipam Limited as per the wage slips and there were no objections to change the name and the respondent was not prejudiced by same and I amend the name accordingly.

Section 1(b) of the Act defines a constructive dismissal as: -

“(b) the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer”.

Section 6(1) of the Act states:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

The burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish facts which prove that he would not have resigned from her employment but for the behaviour of the employer. Constructive dismissal can arise where the employer’s conduct amounts to a repudiatory breach of the contract of employment which would “entitle” the employee to resign his position, often referred to as the “contract test”. As held in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] IRL 332, a repudiatory breach of the contract arises where an employer is:

“guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance”

Secondly, an unlawful constructive dismissal may arise where an employer’s behaviour is so unreasonable as to mean that the employee is left with no reasonable alternative but to terminate his employment. This test of reasonableness, when applied to the within matter, asks whether the employer conducted its affairs in relation to the employee so unreasonably that the Complainant could not fairly be expected to put up with it any longer.

The complainant’s evidence was credible that many difficulties arose during his employment and that the respondent refused to engage with him and there were many occasions where payment was not received on time and unfavourable working conditions that he was subjected to including cold premises and increases in rent and the vulnerability of the complainant in such circumstances where he lived in staff accommodation and there was an expectation that he would work as required by the respondent.

Conway v Ulster Bank Limited UDA474/1981 outlines clearly the expectation for employees to pursue grievances through procedures within a contract of employment and the EAT in Beatty v Bayside Supermarkets UD142/1987, referencing Conway v Ulster Bank Limited 475/1981 determined:

“It is reasonable to expect that the procedures laid down in such agreements be substantially followed in appropriate cases by employer and employee as the case may be, this is the view expressed and followed by the Tribunal in Conway v Ulster Bank Limited 475/1981. In this case the Tribunal considers that the procedure was not followed by the complainant and that it was unreasonable of him not to do so. Accordingly, we consider that applying the test of reasonableness to the complainant’s resignation he was not constructively dismissed”.

I note that although the complainant had a contract of employment which references a grievance procedure it refers the complainant to a company handbook and the complainant’s evidence was that he was not provided with this handbook. I find in all the circumstances that there was a contractual breach of the contract by the failures of the respondent to ensure timely payment and acceptable working conditions and it was justifiable for the complainant in all the circumstances to terminate his employment and I find that the dismissal was unfair. I note the complainant’s evidence that he secured employment and his nett loss amounts to €2,845 and I award the complainant €2,500 which I find fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00064954-015

This complaint was withdrawn.

Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00064954-016

This complaint was withdrawn.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

CA-00064954-001

I find that the complaint is not well founded and dismiss the complaint.

CA-00064954-002

I find that the complaint is well founded and that the monies properly payable are €2,000 nett for wages.

CA-00064954-004

I find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint.

CA-00064954-006

I find that that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant €2,820

CA-00064954-008

I find that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant €425.

CA-00064954-011

I find that the complaint is not well founded and I dismiss the complaint.

CA-00064954-012

I find that the dismissal of the complainant was unfair and I award the complainant €2,500 which I find fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Dated: 09-12-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle

Key Words:

Unfair dismissal, rent, staff accommodation, Sunday premium, annual leave, public holidays