ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00057073

Parties:

Complaints:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  02/09/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997,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.

Background:

The Complainant submitted complaints for payment for overtime, annual leave, public holidays and compensation for working excessive hours.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Student Co-ordinator from 20th January 2022 to 1st December 2024.  She contends that, under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, she is owed wages in the amount of €22,153.50 for overtime hours worked.  Her complaints under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 are that she is owed holiday pay in the amount of €2,025.  She further contends that she was required to work in excess of the maximum permitted weekly working hours and she was not given payment for public holidays.  She submitted extensive detailed records she kept of hours worked and details of tasks undertaken throughout her employment.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent stated that the Complainant was not required to work the number of hours she submitted that she worked.  The Complainant had been told repeatedly not to make herself available to students on an unlimited basis and in most cases this was not necessary.  Her contract stated that she was required to work 5 days per week flexible to include Saturdays and Sundays and it did not cater for overtime.  Her salary was €27,000 per annum, not based on an hourly rate.  Payment for public holidays were included.  By the Complainant’s own records, she received more holidays that her contractual entitlement.

Findings and Conclusions:

Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides:

“Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

Section 41 (8) provides:

“an adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause”.

The complaints were received on 20th February 2025.  The cognisable time period therefore is from 21st August 2024 to the end date of the complainant’s employment which was 1st December 2024 unless saved by Section 41 (8) in which case the time period can be extended back to 20th February 2024.

I note the Complainant made efforts to have the matter of what she perceived as underpayment of wages rectified with the Employer and I note the Employer’s willingness to consider her claims in relation to some of her claims for 2024.   I have decided to extend the time period back to 21st February 2024 in those circumstances.

CA-00069441-001             Payment of Wages Act 1991

The complainant claims the sum of €22,153.50 in unpaid wages which she described as overtime and weekend work.  She also claims the sum of €2,025 for annual leave and she states that she never received her entitlements to public holidays.

In relation to the Complainant’s claim for overtime, I note that her contract of employment states that the hours of work are 37.5 hours per week and she would be required to work 5 days per week which could include Saturdays and Sundays.  In most employments, a worker must have prior approval for overtime.  There is no automatic right in the legislation to payment for overtime. This element of the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00069441-002             Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The complaints here relate to the provision of paid annual leave, public holidays and the maximum permitted working hours.

Section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 provides for a formula for annual leave which caters for a legal minimum of 4 working weeks, or 20 days.  

In relation to annual leave, the Respondent provided a record of the Complainant’s annual leave for 2024 which showed she received in excess of the minimum.  I find this element of her complaint to be not well founded.  

In relation to Public Holidays, I note the Respondent did not cater for the provisions of the Act which states:

21.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an employee shall, in respect of a public holiday, be entitled to whichever one of the following his or her employer determines, namely—

There were 6 Public Holidays in the period:

17/03/2024, 01/04/2024, 06/05/2024, 03/06/2024, 05/08/2024 and 28/10/2024.

I find the complaint to be well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €672, being the monetary value, together with the sum of €1,000 compensation.

In relation to the complaint regarding working hours, I note the Respondent’s position that it did not require the Complainant to work more than 48 hours per week.  However, the meticulous records provided by the Complainant show hours worked in excess of the maximum permitted hours.

Section 15 of the Act provides:

“15.-(1) An employer must not permit an employee to work, in each period of 7 days, more than an average of 48 hours, that is to say an average of 48 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a “reference period”) that does not exceed

• (a) 4 months…”

I have reviewed the information provided and find that the Complainant in this case did work more than the maximum permitted hours.  I find the complaint to be well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €2,000 compensation.

I find the complaints in part well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €672 together with €3,000 compensation for breach of the Act.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

 CA-00069441-001            Payment of Wages Act 1991

Based on the reasons and findings above, I have decided that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00069441-002             Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

Based on the reasons and findings above, I have decided that the complaints are in part well founded.  I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €672 together with the sum of €3,000 compensation for breach of the Act.

Dated:   14-10-2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: