Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ayomide Omotola  David-Ogundele

The Lavey Inn Ltd

Representatives

In person

Larry Burke, Michael J. Ryan Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00068847-001

27/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00068847-002

27/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00068847-003

27/01/2025

These (three) complaints were brought by the Complainant against his former employer, the Respondent,  which owns and manages a public house business.

Under Oath the Complainant gave the following evidence:

He worked for the Respondent as a Kitchen Porter in its public house/restaurant premises in Co. Cavan.

He worked 4 shifts between the dates of 14 January – 22 January 2025.

He was not rostered after that date by the Respondent, even though he wanted to.

On 26 January 2025 he sent one of the owners of the Respondent an email complaining about the way that he was treated during the shifts that he worked. He was not trained properly. He was expected to know what to do without anyone explaining anything. The staff were not friendly to him. He felt demeaned and disrespected. The owner criticised him for wasting water in a manner that felt discriminatory.  After his last shift because he had been so badly treated, he was concerned that he would not be paid. However he accepts that he was paid.

In respect of each complaint he states the following:

CA-00068847-001

When he was trained to do the kitchen work, this training was not conducted within his working hours and he was not paid for this training time.  This was in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (TEIA)

CA-00068847-002

He worked more than 5 consecutive days and did not receive a statement of his Core terms of employment. This was in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

CA-00068847-003

On Tuesday 14 January, he worked 6 hours during which he was entitled to a 30-minute rest period. On both Thursday 16 January and Sunday 19th January 2025, he was entitled to a 15-minute rest period. While he accepts that on these days he was permitted to take eating breaks, these breaks were broken by his manager asking him to do jobs, eg empty a dishwasher, which meant that his rest period were not continuous. This was in breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act (OWTA)

In respect of the preliminary jurisdictional arguments raised by the Respondent, he does not contest that in respect of CA-00068847-001 that protection is provided under section 6 G of the TEIA under requires him to prove that his training is mandated by law or under a collection bargaining agreement. He accepts that he is unable to prove that his training was mandatory and for which he was entitled to be paid.

In respect of the Respondent’s second preliminary jurisdictional argument, in respect of CA-00068847-002 he does not contest that section 7 of the TEIA requires that to present a WRC complaint under section 3(1A) of the TEIA that he is required to have worked for the Respondent for a period not less than one month. He concedes that he worked for the Respondent for less than one  month.

Cross Examination

Under cross examination he accepts that he walked into the premises and asked the Respondent owner if he could work and that he was given an opportunity to work. He accepts that he only worked 4 shifts.

in respect of his OWTA complaint under CA-00068847-003, he accepts  that on the last day that he worked that he and his employer both signed a work hours sheet which made the following declaration “I declare  that the above information in relation to daily and weekly hours worked is correct and that I have received my statutory rest entitlements.” The Complainant added however that while he did get breaks they were interrupted and therefore were not proper breaks.

When asked who had asked him to do tasks within his rest periods, he conceded that he did not know.

He conceded that when he wrote the email of complaint to the owner of the Respondent on 27 January 2025, he did not raise any issue in respect of rest breaks.

/end of Complainant evidence.

On behalf of the Respondent two preliminary jurisdictional arguments were raised.

1.      CA-00068847-001

The right to paid training only arises under section 6 G of the TEIA under (which mandatory paid training is required) needs to arise either under law or under a collection bargaining agreement. The Complainant has not established that there is either a law that requires that kitchen porter work in a public house requires mandatory training. The Complainant has not met the statutory criteria to succeed in this complaint.

2.       CA-00068847-002

Section 7 of the TEIA requires that,  to present a WRC complaint under section 3(1A) of the TEIA, an employee needs to prove that both Core terms were not provided to him and that he is was employed by the Respondent for a period not less than one month. As the Complainant accepts that he worked only 14 days with the Respondent he has not established jurisdiction to allow this complaint to be investigated by the WRC.

3.      In respect of CA-00068847-003

The owner, Pauline Farrelly of the Respondent gave the following evidence under Oath:

The Complainant received his rest breaks. He signed a work hours sheet in which he declared that he was given his statutory rest breaks. He did not report this alleged interruption of his rest break to any member of staff at the time. He did not refer to rest breaks in the email that he sent her on 27 January 2025. He was unable to identify the member of staff who allegedly instructed him to work during his rest break. If his rest break was interrupted, he could have said so to the staff member or alternatively he could have reported it to her. He did neither.

The Complainant was offered the opportunity to cross examine the witness but chose not to.

/end of Respondent evidence.

CA-00068847-001

I am satisfied that I have no jurisdiction to investigate this complaint. The Complainant is unable to identify legislation or any collective bargaining agreement that requires that training of a Kitchen Porter needs to be paid under section 6 (G) of the TEIA. On this basis I find that this complaint to be not well founded.

CA-00068847-002

I am satisfied that the Complainant did not work for the Respondent for one month as is required by section 7 of the TEIA. I find that I have no jurisdiction to investigate this complaint and on that basis this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00068847-003

I am not satisfied that the Complainant has discharged the onus of proof that his rest breaks were interrupted by instructions received by a manager, a person who has not been identified by the Complainant. Even if I accept that a Respondent manager asked him to interrupt his break, the Complainant accepts that he did not then inform this manager that he was on a break. He also accepts that he did not subsequently report it to the owner or state it in his email to her of 27 January. He also accepts that he signed a form declaring that he had received his statutory rest breaks on the four days that he worked for the Respondent. On the balance of probabilities I am not satisfied that the Complainant was denied his statutory rest breaks by the Respondent. I find that this complaint to be not well founded.

CA-00068847-001

This complaint is not well founded

CA-00068847-002

This complaint is not well founded

CA-00068847-003

This complaint is not well founded

Rest periods (Organisation of Working Time Act 1997) and mandatory (paid) training and core terms (Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.)