ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056328
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Yaroslav Shelest | Bosi Ltd Hungry Eyes |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
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-00068563-001 | 12/01/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/05/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. 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. Where submissions were received, they were exchanged. The complainant gave evidence under affirmation. The respondent did not attend the hearing.
Background:
The complainant submits that he did not receive all his annual leave entitlements. The respondent did not attend.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that he commenced employment on 11/12/2023 and his employment ended on 06/09/2024 and his rate of pay was €14 per hour and he worked 40 hours weekly.
The complainant’s evidence was that he did not get his annual leave entitlement and only took one week annual leave during his employment. It was his belief that the respondent is in the country and could have attended the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend. In advance of the hearing on 09/05/2025 Mr A for the respondent emailed that the complainant was owed holidays and that he was sorry and that there was no money to pay and that the company will be liquidated. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant submits that he did not receive all his annual leave. The respondent did not attend and advised that they would not attend and that the complainant was owed holidays.
Section 19 outlines 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):
Provided that if more than one of the preceding paragraphs is applicable in the case concerned and the period of annual leave of the employee, determined in accordance with each of those paragraphs, is not identical, the annual leave to which the employee shall be entitled shall be equal to whichever of those periods is the greater.
The complainant’s undisputed evidence was that he worked approximately 39 weeks and took 40 hours annual leave during that time. I find in all the circumstances of the case that the complainant is owed 3 weeks annual leave at a rate of €14 and I find that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant €1,680. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant €1,680. |
Dated: 9th June 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Annual leave, restaurant closed |