ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057775

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Rodrigo Santana	Easyhotel Ireland Ltd

Representatives

Sehnita Dhailwal HR (UK)

Complaints:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00070342-001	27/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00070342-002	27/03/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/07/2025 and 13/10/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 and made to the Director General, a referral can be made by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services. I can confirm that I (as an appointed Adjudication Officer) have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered during the course of the hearing.

In this instance the Complainant has brought a complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of

In particular, the Complainant herein has referred the following complaint:

A complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act provides that an employer must pay wages that are properly payable to an employee. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.

It should be noted that a non-payment of wages that are properly payable on a given occasion shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on that occasion (per Section 5(6)).

By way of preliminary observation, I am satisfied that a Contract of Employment existed between the parties such that a wage defined by the 1991 Act was payable to the Employee by the Employer in connection with the employment. I further find that the Complainant’s Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was submitted on the 27th of March 2025 allows me to consider contraventions made in the six-month period immediately preceding that date.

In addition to the foregoing the Complainant the Complainant herein has referred one complaint of a contravention of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and in particular to a contravention under Section 19 of the Act which sets out those circumstances which give rise to annual leave entitlements. So that an Employee becomes entitled to Annual leave equal to:

4 weeks in a leave year in which the Employee has worked 1365 hours or more;

1/3 of a working week in each month that the Employee has worked in excess of 177 hours;

8% of the hours worked up to 4 working weeks

Pursuant to Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (as amended), a decision of an adjudication officer as provided for under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act shall do one or more of the following:

(i) Declare the complaint was or was not well founded;
(ii) Require the Employer to comply with the relevant provision;
(iii) Require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances but not exceeding 2 years remuneration.

The Adjudication Officer must be aware of applicable time limits and in this regard, the Workplace Relations Act specifies at Section 41 (6) that (subject to s.s.8) an Adjudication Officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to said Adjudication Officer after the expiration of the period of six months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the Complaint relates.

Background:

This hearing was conducted over the course of two days in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

In line with the coming into effect of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 on the 29th of July 2021, I can confirm that the witnesses herein were required to give their evidence on oath or affirmation. This was done in anticipation of the fact that there may have been a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to the complaint. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 27th of March 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.

It should be noted that after the first day of hearing I had understood that the parties were willing to reach a compromise, and this matter was adjourned to allow for the implementation of the settlement reached. I understand this was not done, and the matter was recalled in front of me to finish evidence and to allow the Complainant get a final decision either way.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant provided me with a comprehensive submission on or about the 19th of June 2025. The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which read as follows:

My employment contract was suspended from 07/12/2024 until 17/01/2025. The reason given by the company was the expiry of my Stamp 2 student visa on 07/12/2024. They claimed that I could not work while waiting for a visa renewal. However, they completely ignored the fact that immigrants like me, who are Stamp 2 visa holders, are granted a grace period of 8 weeks in Ireland, as clearly stated on the following page:

https://www.irishimmigration.ie/notice-to-employers-regarding-employees-awaiting-renewal-of-their-irp-card/

To summarize, as long as an employee submits their visa application before the expiry date and informs their manager, they are entitled to the grace period. That is exactly what I did — yet my employer denied me this grace period by unjustly suspending my contract without pay from 07/12/2024 to 17/01/2025, when I finally received the confirmation email regarding my application from immigration.

It is also important to highlight that during my first visa renewal in March 2024, my employer respected my grace period without issue. This inconsistency in their actions further demonstrates the unjust nature of the suspension.

I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. The Evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s Representative.

The Complainant alleges that he is owed wages for a period of time that wages were not paid and were payable.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent entity was represented by a HR Manager who had travelled from the UK head office. On the first hearing date the Hotel General Manager was also available to give evidence.

The Respondent witness set forth it’s position though did not necessarily seek to contradict the Complainant’s claim.

All evidence was heard following an Affirmation.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Findings and Conclusions:

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced over the course of two days.

The Complainant came to work for the Respondent city centre hotel in and around September of 2023. The Complainant was working on a student visa which limits the hours he can work as he has travelled here from Brazil to study. As I understand it the Complainant was working on a series of back-to-back student visas each of which only had a lifetime of about eight months. The Complainant gave evidence that in March of 2024 the Complainant had applied for and received an updated student visa. This visa was due to expire on the 7th of December 2024. Perhaps, somewhat tardily, the Complainant applied for a replacement/renewed visa on the 2nd of December 2024. He paid his €300.00 application fee. He showed confirmation of this application to his Employer.

Quite out of the blue, the Employer suspended the Complainant from the workplace on the 6th of December, citing a lack of valid work visa as the cause. The suspension was without pay.

The Complainant was completely shocked at this decision. The Complainant has, and had a good understanding of what is and isn’t permissible when it comes to visa renewal and the Complainant directed me to the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in this regard wherein is states (and stated at the time):

The Immigration Services Registration Office Burgh Quay Dublin is currently experiencing a very large volume of applications with a current processing time to renew an Irish Residence Permit (IRP) card of 6 weeks approx.

Following the completion of the renewal of Registration it may take a further two weeks to receive the new IRP card. Therefore persons wishing to renew their registration should allow sufficient time to complete the process to ensure they remain in permission while in the State.

If an employee’s IRP card has expired and they are unable to obtain a valid registration card by the expiry date of their current IRP card, they are still legally permitted to remain in the State on the existing conditions of their current IRP card for a maximum of 8 weeks. This 8 week provision is subject to the employee providing proof that they have applied to renew their registration, including when changing stamp category, prior to their current IRP card expiring.

All permission renewals in the Republic of Ireland are processed online and applicants are issued with a receipt of application detailing the date of application and a unique application number (OREG number). Once the online renewal application has been approved an application completed e-mail is sent to the applicant. This email confirmation can be used as proof of registration while the applicant awaits the delivery of their new IRP card.

If, however, their current permission expired prior to submitting an application for renewal, they are considered out of permission and therefore not legally permitted to remain or work in the State.

The Complainant then went on to say that earlier during the same employment relationship, the Complainant had previously been allowed tocontinue working in the workplace between student visas where the work was happening in that 8-week period described.

The Respondent never resiled from the position it took on the 6th of December 2024 and the Complainant was only ever allowed to return to his employment with the Respondent on the 17th of January 2025. The Complainant made every effort at persuading the Respondent (both in Ireland and in the UK) to allow him to work as he was ready, willing and able to work and was – most importantly- legally entitled to work.

The Complainant is, not surprisingly aggrieved at what happened to him financially over that Christmas and in consequence of the unenlightened treatment of him by his employer the Respondent.

By way of reply, the Respondent has indicated that it took advice form an Irish based HR Group but it seems that the advice given was wrong, or certainly without a lawful justification that I have been shown. There seemed to be some sort of theory that the Complainant had left it too late to apply for the new visa. This is not borne out by the wording of the Department’s information site.

The advice given and acted upon by the Respondent has had a hugely detrimental effect of the Complainant.

In the circumstances, I am bound to find in the Complainant’s favour. The Complainant was due to work and be paid for the period of time that he was purportedly and incorrectly suspended without pay.

The Complainant has calculated his losses based on the lost shifts he should have worked over a nearly six week period between the 7th of December 2024 and the 17th of January 2025. The Complainant noted that there was a jump in the hourly rate in 2025 (from €13.00 per hour to €13.80.00 per hour) which he has included as part of his calculations.

The Respondent witness did not challenge any part of the Complainant’s calculations, and I am thereby taking that position as being a confirmation of the correctness of the claim for €2,421.00.

The Complainant has made an additional claim for a just and equitable compensation payment for the failure by the Employer to ensure that his annual leave entitlements for that period of suspension were not calculated.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00070342-001 – The complaint herein is well founded, and I direct that the Employer/Respondent pay to the Complainant the sum of €2,421.00.

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

CA-00070342-002 – The complaint herein is well founded, and I require the Employer/Respondent pay to the Complainant compensation in the amount of €600.00.

Dated: 19-11-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Key Words: