ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053972

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Ciara Ryan	Dublin Ink Social Club

Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

Self - Represented

Ms Nicola Murphy of Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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-00065840-002	07/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065840-003	07/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065840-004	07/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00065840-005	07/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065840-007	07/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065840-008	07/09/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00065935-001	11/09/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/03/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015; Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997; Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 following 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.

In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.

Following the Hearing additional submissions were requested & submitted to the Adjudication Officer. They were exchanged and comments invited from both sides.

The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses present. The legal perils of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.

The issue of anonymisation in the published finding of the WRC was considered by the Parties but not deemed necessary.

Background:

The issues in contention concern a Manager and an Ink / Tattoo Parlour/Social Club.

The issues were under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997; Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The employment began on the 30th June 2023 and ended on the 8th September 2024.

The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been €487:00 weekly for a 40-hour week.

Opening legal issue

The Respondent pointed out that the Cognisable time period for the complaints, especially the Time & Attendance issues is the six months prior to the claim being lodged at the WRC. The dates being the 8th March 2024 to the 7th September 2024. This was not contested by the Complainant

1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:

For easy of reference a Tabular Format will be used.

The Complainant, who was self-represented, gave a detailed Oral testimony and supplied two Written Submissions.

Extensive cross examinations took pace.


Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Complainant Details
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065840-002	Alleged that No legal Public Holiday Payments made
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065840-003	No Statement received in Writing of Terms and conditions as required by the Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065840-004	Sunday Premium was not Paid
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00065840-005	Considerable shortfall (between agreed and actual) in wages received. No Pay Slips or Revenue Details ever received by Complainant. Dismissal followed reasonable requests for same. Post Hearing the Complainant submitted detailed Financial Information, from a professional Accountant, in support of this complaint. Furnished to Respondent for rebuttal commentary. Detailed discussion set out below.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065840-007	No statement of Core Terms of Employment received by Complainant.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065840-008	No proper notification of Work Start and Finish time ever received. Shift times changed arbitrarily with little or zero notice given to the Complainant.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00065935-001	Dismissed without any warnings or proper HR procedures. False allegations made concerning Time Keeping and Productivity. Dismissal followed immediately on Complainant request for full details of Pay Slips and Revenue details. Serious Revenue reporting irregularities alleged. Extensive e mail, What’s Aps and Text messages were presented in Complainant evidence as were a number of Witness statement from former employees.

2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Respondent Replies
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065840-002 Alleged that No legal Public Holiday Payments made	The Complainant received a Day off with Pay on “Closed” Public Holidays -25th/ 26th December or else was compensated with an additional day’s Annual leave. A detailed chart was supplied to demonstrate that the Complainant had received 32 days Holiday pay (10 Public and 21 +1 Standard leave in the Period) - 0ne day in excess of her actual legal entitlement.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065840-003 No Statement received in Writing of Terms and conditions as required by the Act.	Taken with CA-00065840-007 below. It was accepted that a “purely technical Breach” of the relevant Act took place here. The Complainant was at all times fully aware of her duties and rights. Case law precedent was supplied by the Respondent to argue that the Complainant was “never at any detriment” – Labour Court – Philmic Ltd v Petraitis (TED 1616) where compensation was awarded by the Court at a Zero amount was cited by the Respondent.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065840-004 Sunday Premium was not Paid	Sunday Premium was included in the basic rate of pay – although not specifically identified as such. The minimum wage in the period was €12.70 -the Complainant’s rate was €14:00 per hour. The Respondent cited Legal precedents especially Trinity City Hotel v Kolesnik & Others where the High Court allowed the situation of not requiring a detailed statement of a Sunday premium in a “Composite rate of Pay”
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00065840-005 Considerable shortfall (between agreed and actual) in wages received.	The Respondent commissioned their Accountant to review the Complainants’ wage records. Regrettably it was discovered that an under payment of € 908.61 was due to the Complainant. These monies will be paid as soon as possible.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065840-007 No statement of Core Terms of Employment received by Complainant.	See above CA-00065840-003
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065840-008 No proper notification of Work Start and Finish time ever received.	The Hours of Work of the Business were 11:00 hrs to 19:00 hrs over 7 days. The complaint was expected to work 5 days in the week. Her hours did not vary save in the very occasional “business need” situation when some work times were changed. This is allowed for in the legislation. Furthermore, the Complainant had failed to provide any specific details of instances where she had been disadvantaged and in the absence of such datils the Respondent cannot comment any further.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00065935-001 Dismissed without any warnings or proper HR procedures.	The Dismissal was proportionate and justified by the failings of the Complainant in her Work performance and Time Keeping. Extensive What’s Ap messages, text Messages etc were presented in evidence to substantiate the Respondent’s position. The legal issue of admissibility of “hearsay evidence” regarding much of the Complainant evidence was raised strongly by Ms Murphy for the Respondent.

3: Findings and Conclusions:

3:1 Introduction

Much of the supplementary evidence submitted in this case was photo shots of What’s Ap messages and latterly a Professional Accountant Report from McKernan and Co Chartered Accountants for the Complainant. This latter report and the supplementary attached Complainant submission was forwarded to the Respondent for comment on the 8th of April 2025 and a reminder sent on the 19th of May 2025. At the date of writing of the Decision no rebuttal comments were received by the Adjudicator.

Considerable Hearsay evidence but supported by copy What’s App messages, was presented by the Complainant regarding a Ms Dawn L, Business Manager and Partner of the Principal, Mr H. Ms Dawn L was not present at the Hearing for cross examination which was a difficulty.

3:2 Consideration of complaints & Adjudicator conclusions.

Again, a Tabular format is used for convenience.


Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Adjudicator consideration & Conclusion.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065840-002 Alleged that No legal Public Holiday Payments made	From the evidence presented, under Oath/Affirmation, it appeared that Public Holiday payments were made. This Complaint is Not Well Founded.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065840-003 No Statement received in Writing of Terms and conditions as required by the Act.	It was accepted by the Respondent that nothing in writing had ever been given to the Complainant. Accordingly, redress is due for Breach of a Statutory Right. Under Section 7(2) (a) of the Act the Complaint is deemed to be Well Founded. Under Section (7) (2) (d) Compensation to the value of € 1,000 is awarded to the Complainant. It is to be noted that this is a Compensation award and is not remuneration for taxation purposes.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065840-004 Sunday Premium was not Paid	Sunday premium was included in the basic rate of pay – although not specifically identified as such. The minimum wage in the period was €12.70 -the Complainant’s rate was €14:00 per hour. The Respondent cited Legal precedents especially Trinity City Hotel v Kolesnik & Others where the High Court allowed the situation of not requiring a detailed statement of a Sunday premium in a “Composite rate of Pay” The Respondent argument has to be recognised as valid here. The Complaint is not deemed to be Legally well Founded.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00065840-005 Considerable shortfall (between agreed and actual) in wages received.	The Respondent commissioned their Accountant to review the Complainants’ wage records. Regrettably it was discovered that an under payment of € 908.61 was due to the Complainant. The review by the Complainant’s accountants McKernan and Co raised considerable questions regarding proper Taxation declarations and applicable rates of pay. The question of proper Taxation and Revenue procedures is not a case for the WRC. However, sworn allegations regarding Cash payments and non-Provision of Wage Slips certainly is troubling evidence. The Respondent’s admission of a Wage Shortfall of €908.61 is compelling. Accordingly, the complaint is deemed Well founded and the sum of € 908.61 is directed to be paid to the Complainant as soon as practical. (Other issues raised in the Complainant McKernan Accountants Report should be addressed to the Revenue as soon as possible).
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065840-007 No statement of Core Terms of Employment received by Complainant.	See above CA-00065840-003 As set out above the Redress for this Breach of a Statutory Right is encompassed in the Redress award for CA-00065840-003
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065840-008 No proper notification of Work start and Finish time ever received.	There was a complete absence of Employment Records provided. It appeared no time recording system was in use. Considerable hearsay evidence was presented concerning Ms Dawn L. Supporting copies of What’s App traffic was of some assistance to the Adjudicator. On the balance of probability, the Complaint is deemed to be Legally well founded. A Compensation Sum of €500 is awarded in favour of the Complainant. This is compensation for Breach of a Statutory Right and is not Remuneration.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00065935-001 Dismissed without any warnings or proper HR procedures.	The Oral and Written evidence plus the hearsay regarding Ms D L, indicated that the Dismissal was peremptory and lacked all proper Employment Procedures. No investigations took place, and no appeals were allowed. The Complainant was not offered any right to professional Representation or a supporting Colleague. Paperwork was negligible. SI 146 of 2000, Statutory Code of practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (Declaration order) of 2000 was not observed. Accordingly, the Complaint of Unfair Dismissal has to be deemed legal Well Founded on procedural grounds. An Unfair Dismissal took place. Redress, under Section 7 of the Unfair Dismissal Act,1977 is required. Accordingly, a Redress Lump Sum of € 6,000 being approximately 12 week’s pay is awarded in favour of the Complainant.

4: Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997; Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Adjudication decision
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065840-002 Alleged that No legal Public Holiday Payments made	Complaint Legally Not Well Founded. No Redress warranted.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065840-003 No Statement received in Writing of Terms and conditions as required by the Act.	Complaint deemed Legally Well founded Compensation of €1,000 is awarded for Breach of a Statutory Right. This is not Renumeration for Taxation purposes.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065840-004 Sunday Premium was not Paid	Complaint deemed Legally Not Well Founded. No redress awarded.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00065840-005 Considerable shortfall (between agreed and actual) in wages received.	An award of €908.61 is made in favour of the Complainant. This is a Renumeration Payment.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065840-007 No statement of Core Terms of Employment received by Complainant.	Complaint is deemed Legally well Founded. Redress already considered in CA-00065840-003 above.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065840-008 No proper notification of Work start and Finish time ever received.	Complaint deemed Legally well Founded. Redress of € 500 awarded in favour of the Complainant. This is a Compensation award not Renumeration.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00065935-001 Dismissed without any warnings or proper HR procedures.	An Unfair Dismissal took place on procedural Grounds. The Complaint is deemed Well Founded. Redress of € 6,000 is awarded in favour of the Complainant.

Dated: 23-05-2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Key Words:

Unfair Dismissal, Hours of Work, Employment Terms and Conditions Information.