Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Luan Vinicius De Souza

Cherry Orchard Tyres Mark

Representatives

Lisa Richardson LR Bookkeeping & Payroll

Act

Complaint 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-00071064-001

24/04/2025

The complainant gave his evidence on affirmation.

During his employment with the respondent, he says that he worked hard and responsibly. He opened and closed the shop every day and managed a second branch.

The employer avoided written communication and insisted on speaking only by phone.

He was promised a salary increase, but it never happened and was ignored when he asked about his employment contract and payslips,

In due course he left the company because of this. He questioned the reliability of the respondent ‘s systems, especially the clock in system.

In response to a question the complainant confirmed that he was not owed any annual leave and that he had sought a bonus.

All payments and entitlements due to the complainant were made correctly and in accordance with statutory requirements.

The complaint falls solely under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, relating to non-payment of holiday pay. All other matters raised by the complainant are outside the scope of this hearing and should be disregarded. Further correspondence from the WRC (confirms that this complaint relates solely to pay.

All payroll and accounting functions are independently managed by third party accountants, a professional payroll and accounting bureau.

The complainant commenced employment with Cherry Orchard Tyres Ltd on June 19th 2024 as a Tyre Fitter, paid weekly at an hourly rate of €14.50. On 28 January 2025, he resigned, confirming that his final working day would be 22 February 2025 as he intended to return to Brazil to care for his father.

The respondent accepted the resignation and accommodated the situation by allowing flexibility around his final working dates. His final pay slip was issued on 21 March 2025. Contrary to the complainant ’s assertion, he was not dismissed on 19 March 2025.

Aminor discrepancy regarding the processing of a back week was identified and corrected promptly on April 4tth, 2025  Allrelevantdocumentationincluding pay slips, payment records, clock-in data, and annual leave records is included collectively.

Cherry Orchard Tyres has always maintained timekeeping and payroll systemsinlinewithlegal requirements.

During the complainant ’s period of employment, the company initially operated an employee attendance system through BrightHR, which allowed digital clock-in and clock-out recording. However, the respondent experienced ongoing difficulties operating this system remotely, and it did not provide adequate functionality or integration for the business’s needs.

The company transitioned to a new EPOS-based time and attendance system in February 2025. This new system provides improved reporting and accountability and has been used since that date. (Exhibit E).

All working hours, as recorded through these systems, were forwarded to the external payroll provider for processing.

The complainant was issued with a contract of employment he did not return a signed copy of his Contract of Employment. The standard contract explicitly refers to the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, confirming compliance with statutory rest breaks and working-hour limits. It states:

Over the twelve-week reference period reviewed, the complainant ’s average working week was approximately 30 hours, well below the statutory maximum of 48 hours. All authorised hours were paid at the agreed rate, and there is no evidence to indicate that the complainant worked excessive hours or was denied rest breaks.

Accordingly, Cherry Orchard Tyres Ltd was not in breach of any provision of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (Exhibit F – Contract of Employment and Employee Handbook).

In February 2025, the complainant requested time off to care for his father, who was unwell. The respondent was sympathetic to his personal circumstances and facilitated a period of unpaid leave to allow him to attend to his family responsibilities.

On 5 February 2025, the complainant also requested a personal loan of €1,000 to assist with medical costs. The Respondent explained that the company was not in a position to provide personal loans, as such facilities are not available within the business.

While the request could not be approved, the Respondent continued to offer flexibility and understanding. The decision not to provide a loan was made in accordance with company policy and should not be interpreted as a lack of compassion. The Respondent has always sought to act fairly and respectfully toward all employees.

Following proof that all wages were paid up to date, Mr. De Souza sent a WhatsApp message to the owner confirming there were no outstanding monies owed. In his own words, he stated that he “doesn’t have time to go over everything since joining the company” and that “everything is fine between them.”

He further acknowledged that his concern was not unpaid wages, but personal expenses related to his return to Brazil and renting a house.

Mr. De Souza then requested a bonus payment.

This message is clear and unambiguous Mr. De Souza admits he was fully paid and instead sought an ex gratia bonus, confirming there was no dispute regarding wages owed. His own statement directly contradicts his subsequent WRC claim alleging unpaid wages.

The complainant’s submission includes assertions that are inaccurate or unsupported. Specifically: he resigned voluntarily and was not dismissed, the refusal to provide a loan was based on policy, not on a lack of support and claims of unpaid holiday pay are contradicted by payroll and attendance records.

The Respondent submits that the complainant was paid correctly and in full for all hours and statutory entitlements and he resigned voluntarily and was treated with fairness and understanding.

The Respondent has at all times operated in compliance with the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and requests that Complaint CA-00071064 be dismissed in full.

The business owner, Mr. Mark Devoy gave evidence on affirmation.

He confirmed that all data relating to hours and accounts information necessary to generate payroll information was sent to a third party service He said all the complainant ‘s entitlements had been paid.

The complainant set out a number of grievances with the respondent, but as noted in the respondent’s submission the only complaint referred was under the Payment of Wages Act.

Nonetheless, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it was those other grievances that fuelled the complaint about wages and there is some suggestion that they appear to be retaliation for the failure of the respondent to respond to these unrelated demands.

The respondent’s evidence was persuasive, specifically evidence that it operated a professional system for the generation of its payroll and evidence was submitted of its recording of clocking, of pay slips etc.

While the complainant challenged whether the source material that was sent to the accountants was reliable no serious evidence was offered to suggest that it was not.

Details were submitted of the complainant’s pattern of clocking-in which does not appear to have been questioned at any time by the complainant.

Indeed, on the contrary, the evidence of the text message exchanges between the parties are strongly indicative that the complainant had accepted that there were no outstanding issues between them in relation to pay.

This is critical and capable of only one interpretation; viz that there were no outstanding payments due to the complainant arising from his claimed annual leave entitlements.

For the reasons set out above, Complaint CA-00071064-001 is not well founded

Annual Leave entitlements