Complainant

Respondent

Parties

David  Boylan

Letview Ltd t/a Ultimate Hair And Beauty

Representatives

  Self

Alistair Rutherdale, BL, instructed by Aidan Dempsey, FH O’Reilly and Co, Solicitors.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.   WITHDRAWN.

CA-00069900-001

06/03/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act.   WITHDRAWN.

CA-00069900-002

06/03/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18 of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1996

CA-00069900-004

06/03/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00069900-005

06/03/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001

CA-00069900-006

06/03/2025

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  WITHDRAWN.

CA-00069900-007

06/03/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act.  WITHDRAWN.

CA-00069900-008

06/03/2025

The Complainant commenced employment as a hair stylist with the Respondent on

 01/11/2009.  He is paid on the basis of a guaranteed minimum wage of €130 per day and commission structure of 35% on weekly earnings up to €1,200 and 40% on takings above that amount.  He currently works four days per week.  The Complainant has submitted a number of complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) under various pieces of employment legislation and is seeking adjudication under the relevant provisions of the applicable acts.

The Respondent submits that some of the complaints are not applicable to the Complainant.  The remaining claims are denied by the Respondent.

Following an initial review of the complaints the following were withdrawn by the Complainant:  CA-0069900-001; CA-0069900-002; CA-0069900-007; CA-0069900-008. 

A further complaint under the Industrial Relations Act is the subject of a separate recommendation.

The Complainant gave evidence on oath.  He outlined that he is a successful hairdresser for 40 years.  He is currently experiencing difficulties at work. The Complainant outlined that his doctor has prescribed medication to assist him with medical issues.  The Complainant submits that over the past five years the Respondent he has been badly treated by the Respondent.  The results of this is that he feels bullied, isolated and that the Respondent is trying to force him out of work by reducing his ability to earn a living.  The Complainant gave evidence in relation to each of his complaints.

CA-00069900-004:  This complaint is seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 18 of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1996.  The Complainant submitted that he was in dispute with the Respondent in relation to his wages. He raised an issue in relation to zero-hour contracts which he believed were being issued to junior staff. These staff did not feel that they could make a complaint.  The Complainant gave evidence that he was told by the Respondent that this matter would be sorted.  He believes that it is still not dealt with.    It is the Complainant’s position that he is being penalised as a result of raising this matter.  The Complainant believes that the Respondent has “tried to work me out of my job”.   He feels bullied and harassed in the workplace.

Cross examination - the Complainant:

The Complainant was cross examined by Mr Rutherdale, BL, on behalf of the Respondent.  The Complainant was asked what the date of the penalisation was.  He stated that the penalisation started in 2019 and continues to the present day.   The Complainant also confirmed that he has been on prescribed medication since January 2020.  The Complainant was asked to clarify what the bullying and harassment he alleges involved.  He stated that he is isolated in the workplace, management and staff work together and as a result of his standing up for other colleagues he has been isolated.  It was put to the Complainant that he was in fact looking for a way out.  He confirmed that he was in 2019.  It was put to the Complainant that he was trying to negotiate a way out.  He stated that there were discussions in 2020 about redundancy but this was delayed due to COVID-19.  The Complainant stated that he was offered €4,000 to leave but he refused this offer.  The Complainant was asked about the redundancy discussions in 2019/2020.  He confirmed that those discussions took place and consequently he was out sick and he was adversely affected and isolated following this.

It was put to the Complainant that in 2020 he wanted to get out and he was unhappy.  The Complainant stated that when he returned from sick leave, he met DM, the previous owner, and as he was in the process of selling the business to the Respondent the matter of his redundancy was to be dealt with as a legacy issue.

The Complainant was asked how his pay was affected due to his allegation of bullying and harassment.  The Complainant stated that he can show that for the years 2016 and 2019 he had a 30% pay rise.  Since then, he has had a 16% pay decrease.  The Complainant was asked if this was “the high-water mark” and he agreed it was.

CA-00069900-005:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000.  The Complainant gave evidence that he noticed that he was not paid the minimum wage initially on 06/10/2023.  He submitted that this also happened on 24/10/2024.  The Complainant outlined that he was penalised by the Respondent who restricted his client base and therefore he was earning less wages.  The Complainant outlined that he should receive €130 per day and commission based after that.  He feels that on occasions his commission is transferred to pay his daily rate.

Cross examination - the Complainant:

The Complainant was cross examined by Mr Rutherford, BL, on behalf of the Respondent.  The Complainant was asked if he made a complaint to the employer that he was not paid the national minimum wage. He stated that he did not and he stated that there was an occurrence of this in July 2025.  It was put to the Complainant that there was never a week that he was not paid the national minimum wage.  The Complainant stated that he would disagree.

The Complainant was asked if he agreed that the wage structure that was in place continued when Ms Murray took over the business is still in place.  The Complainant disagreed.

The Complainant was asked when the alleged change occurred. He outlined that there was a change when the cash bonus was removed and the commission then changed.

It was put to the Complainant that he works four days per week at his own choice and he agreed.  It was put to the Complainant that if he were to work 5 or 5.5 days per week, he would earn more money. The Complainant stated that he would not if there were no clients and his wages were taken from commission earned on other days.  He stated that he was being penalised by not having clients allocated.

It was put to the Complainant that clients were allocated fairly to stylists.  He stated that he was not allocated new clients.  He also agreed that there were clients who request him.  It was put to him that walk-in clients may be allocated to other stylists if he was busy.  He agreed and said that he was only allocated two new clients in the past week.  The Complainant stated that the system was manipulated so that he would not get casual clients.  It was put to the Complainant that clients are allocated on a fair basis and new clients are allocated to other stylists fairly.  The Complainant stated that he did not agree as there are occasions when he is available and not allocated clients.

The Complainant was asked if he ever raised a complaint that as a result of his raising a complaint under the National Minimum wage he was penalised.  The Complainant stated “my wages tell the story.  There is a 16% decline in my wages”.

It was put to the Complainant that footfall in the Dublin City Centre area has fallen since COVID-19.  He stated that all business has fallen but it is possible to build a client base but he is not being allocated any new clients. 

CA-00069900-006:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001.  The Complainant outlined that he brought an issue to the Respondent in 2019 and he has been bullied because of this.  This bullying takes the form of being denied clients, being isolated and a loss of income.  He stated that he brought notice of a contravention of the Act to his employer.

Cross examination - the Complainant:

The Complainant was cross examined by Mr Rutherdale, BL, on behalf of the Respondent.  It was put to the Complainant that he was never employed on a zero-hours contract and he agreed.  It was put to the Complainant that he was acting as an unelected staff representative.  He confirmed that he was because young people are afraid to stand up when they are new in the workplace.

The Complainant was asked if he had any evidence in the 12-month period from March 2026 that there was a contravention of the Act.  He stated that there was none.  The Complainant stated that as far as he was aware nothing was ever done in relation to zero hours contracts.

It was put to the Complainant that his evidence was that he was penalised because of having raised this issue.  He was asked if he was referring to the same kind of penalisation that he gave earlier evidence in relation to. He confirmed that he was penalised along the same lines and that there was a consistent reduction in his client base.  Everything in relation to these complaints is connected.

It was put to the Complainant that there was no overt discrimination.  He stated that he disagreed and that there is discrimination against him since 2020.

It was put to the Complainant that he was wrong in fact that the Respondent continues to use zero-hours contracts since 2019.  The Complainant stated that he did not believe he was wrong.

Closing submission – the Complainant:

The Complainant in a closing submission outlined that he has been working in the salon since 2009 and the issues in dispute started in 2019.  This came about due to proposed changes in the wages system which he did not agree with and his colleagues were told that if he did not agree to the changes then no one would get the €4,000 bonus.  The Complainant stated that zero-hours contracts were in place.

The Complainant submitted that it was clear in his evidence and the documents which he opened and referenced at the hearing that his wages increased by 30% before 2019 and since then there has been a decrease of 16%.  This is the result of “a clear and sustained attack on my wages”.  The consequences for him are that he is bullied and isolated in the workplace.   Some staff do not speak with him.  Staff have a natural allegiance to Ms Murray as she owns, controls and manages the salon.  He does not get an even distribution of casual clients.  It is the Complainant’s position that the decrease in his wages is not simply due to a decrease in footfall.

The Complainant stated that he is committed to continue working for the Respondent and wants to maintain the professional standards that he delivers to clients and the salon.

Ms Tanya Murray gave evidence on oath on behalf of the Respondent.  The Respondent operates a hair and beauty salon in Dublin City Centre.  She has been in the hairdressing business for 32 years.  She took over the business on 26/03/2020 from the previous owner, DM, who was not related to her.  Prior to that she was the manager of the business.  She gave evidence that she currently employs 12 stylists and 2 colourists. Ms Murray confirmed that the copy of the Complainants’ contract of employment which was opened at the hearing was the contract that was on file.

Ms Murray was asked about the Complainant’s remuneration and she confirmed that there was no change in how his remuneration was paid after she took over the business.  Ms Murray gave evidence that a document which outlined the Complainant’s pay and commission structure was given to her by the previous owner.  Ms Murray confirmed that there was no change to this arrangement.

Ms Murray was asked about the Complainant’s assertion that the €130 per day was a stand-alone payment.  She stated that this was not a correct interpretation.  The pay structure was that he was guaranteed a minimum wage of €130 per day.  Ms Murray illustrated this by saying that if the Complainant had no clients on a particular day, he would receive a payment of €130.  If he had clients then the commission-based payment structure applied.  This was 35% up to €1,200 and 40% on takings over that amount.

Ms Murray was asked if she isolated the Complainant in the salon.  She stated that she would highly dispute this and gave evidence that they have a professional relationship.  She confirmed that she works in the salon.  Ms Murray also gave evidence that she has not witnessed any isolation of the Complainant.

Ms Murray was asked about the Complainant’s proposition that he was penalised in the allocation of clients.  She gave evidence that when a client returns and asks for a particular stylist they are assigned to that stylist.  If the stylist was not working that day the client would be informed and they might choose to go to a different stylist or wait until that stylist was working again.  Ms Murray stated that it is important to keep clients in the salon by ensuring that they go to the stylist they request.

Ms Murray gave evidence in relation to the allocation of walk-in clients.  She explained that such clients are allocated to the stylist who was in first that day and allocation follows that pattern.  The Complainant has several clients who attend during his four-day working week.  Ms Murray stated that the Complainant does not have more returning clients than other stylists. 

Ms Murray stated that there is no manipulation of the allocation system in any way.  Ms Murray also gave evidence that she does not believe she has done anything that could be construed as bullying and harassment.  Ms Murray stated that there were no examples provided by the Complainant.

Ms Murray was asked about the Complainant’s submission that he was told that if he did not accept the €4,000 to agree to the pay/bonus payment that something would happen.  Ms Murray stated that she never said anything of that nature.

Ms Murray confirmed that she was not involved in the voluntary redundancy discussions with the Complainant in 2019/2020.   She was part of the mediation process in 2022.    Ms Murray gave evidence that her understanding of what the Complainant wanted was a redundancy but she did not want to lose a stylist and she did not want other stylists to also seek redundancy payments. 

Ms Murray was asked if she received any grievance from the Complainant in the six-month period preceding 06/03/2025.  She confirmed that she did not but there were some emails from the Complainant that were wage queries.

Ms Murray confirmed that she does not operate zero-hour contracts in the salon.  She did agree that these may have been in place historically.  Ms Murray also confirmed that she was not aware of any complaint raised by the Complainant in the six months prior to March 2025 in relation to not being paid the national minimum wage.  Ms Murray also confirmed that at no stage was the Complainant a formal employee representative.

Cross examination – Ms Tanya Murray:

Ms Murray was cross examined by the Complainant.  She was asked how long the daily payment of €130.00 has been in existence.  She confirmed that was in place since 2019.  It was put to Ms Murray that this daily rate has not increased since then and she agreed.  Ms Murray was asked if she agreed that in order to get a pay rise the prices in the salon would have to be raised up.  She agreed and said that the commission would also increase.  Ms Murray was asked how much the price of hair work in the salon has increased since 2019.  She stated that she did not want to guess the figure but agreed that prices had increased on a few occasions.

Ms Murray was asked about the Complainant’s view that there were communication issues and also isolation issues in relation to him.  Ms Murray stated that she maintained a professional working relationship with the Complainant.  Ms Murray was asked why she did not respond to the Complainant’s query about not receiving holiday pay which he did not receive when he took holidays on 06/04/2025.  Ms Murray stated that she only became aware of this in the lead up to the hearing as the Complainant had used an Outlook email and not the normal salon email.  Ms Murray was asked if she communicated with the Complainant when he returned from annual leave and she confirmed that she did not.

It was put to Ms Murray that many of the staff in the salon did not communicate with the Complainant.  Ms Murray stated that she was not aware.  Ms Murray was asked if her sister who also works in the salon communicates with the Complainant.  Ms Murray stated that as far as she is aware she also communicates with him on a professional basis.

Ms Murray was asked to explain how the Complainant got a pay increase from 2016 to 2019 which was in the region of 30%.  Ms Murray stated that without access to the figures she could not explain.  Ms Murray was asked if, at the end of 2019, the Complainant’s pay increase was due to a bonus.  She stated that she did not know but he could also have worked additional days.

Ms Murray was asked to  explain how the bonus system ended.  She stated that the only change she could recall was the change to a bank transfer system.  Ms Murray also stated that there was a €4,000 bonus paid at the end of 2019.

It was put to Ms Murray that the Complainant’s wages decreased from 2019.  Ms Murray stated that the business in the salon had decreased 30% which resulted in a decrease in turnover.  There was no price increase and the salon has lost clients.  Ms Murray was asked when the salon becomes unviable if the business keeps decreasing.  She stated that she did not know.

Ms Murray was asked about an issue in the Complainant’s pay for the period 16/07/2025 to 19/07/2025 and she stated that this looked like an error and she was prepared to look into and rectify this.

Ms Murray stated that she agreed to the mediation process as she wanted to sort things out.

Ms Murray confirmed that the other members of staff who were present were there to give witness evidence if required. 

Closing submission – the Respondent:

Mr Rutherdale, BL, made a closing submission on behalf of the Respondent.  Mr Rutherdale submitted that he would begin by making a reference to the legislative background to each of the complaints.

CA-00069900-004:  This complaint under Section 18 of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1996 deals with capacity.  A person who is 18 years or older brings their own complaint.  Section 18 of the Act gives the power to a parent or guardian to bring a complaint in relation to a young person.  The Complainant is not allowed to bring a complaint under this section of the act.  Consequently, there is no valid complaint.  In addition to this a valid complaint must be submitted within 6 months of any alleged contravention.  This period may be extended by a further 6 months in certain circumstances.

CA-00069900-005:  It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that Section 24 (1) of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 stated that “if an employee and his or her employer cannot agree on the appropriate entitlement of the employee to pay in accordance with this Act resulting in an under-payment to the employee …”   It is not clear from the Complainant’s evidence that anything comes within the scope of that section.    In addition to this section 2(a) (ii) outlines that a 6-month time frame is provided for and there is a further provision to extend this to 12 months.   In this case the Complainant wishes to bring a long running complaint under this Act and the only evidence that he provided was in relation to date in August 2025 which is beyond the date he submitted his complaint to the WRC and which does not form part of his complaint.

CA-00069900-006:  It was submitted that section 9 or section 15 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 requires a Complainant to identify a contravention of the Act.  Section 9 prohibits less favourable treatment to a comparable full-time employee and section 15 prohibits the penalisation of an employee for invoking any right under the Act.  Section 16(1) of the Act provides for a complaint to be made and if a valid complaint, then the redress is as outlined in section 16(2) of the Act.

In relation to the factual matters in relation to these complaints it was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant commenced employment in 2009 and he states that he wants to continue working for the Respondent.  It would appear that these matters go back to a dispute in 2019/2020 when the previous owner was making a change to the payment systems.  In the time frame relevant to these complaints there was a contractual position in place that the Complainant was paid a minimum daily rate of €130.  It is incorrect to interpret that the commission was over and above this rate.  The system in place remains unchanged.

The Complainant has made a plea about his wages.  The Complainant has not brought any complaint about fairer wages.  The WRC can look at breaches such as payment of wages, or minimum wage.  Ms Murray has explained the drop in footfall and the tight hairdressing business environment.

The Complainant has not identified any specific penalisation in the 6-month period as required by the Act.  Ms Murray has given evidence in relation to the allocation process for regular clients and for casual clients.  It is a fact that the Complainant has a lot of regular clients and therefore may get fewer casual clients.

In relation to the complaint about isolation, Ms Murray accepts that she speaks to the Complainant on a business basis. Ms Murray’s sister also speaks to him in a similar manner.  This is not evidence of bullying or harassment.  There is a procedure in place in which management have to be notified.  The two letters referenced by the Complainant go back to the 2019 dispute.  There was no evidence that the Complainant invoked any procedure.

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant has no valid complaints and these should be dismissed.   While there are no complaints submitted in relation to the Complainant’s holiday pay and the alleged error in his July pay the Respondent will pay the holiday pay and look into the other payment. 

CA-00069900-001:  This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing on 18/09/2025.

CA-00069900-002:  This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing on 18/09/2025.

CA-00069900-007:  This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing on 18/09/2025.

CA-00069900-008:  This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing on 18/09/2025.

CA-00069900-004: This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 18 of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1996. This act extended the law relating to the protection of young persons in employment and gave effect to the Council Directive No. 94/33/EC of June 1994 on the protection of young people at work.  The Act defines a “young person” as “a person who has reached 16 years of age or the school-leaving age (whichever is the higher) but is less than 18 years of age”.

The Act is prescriptive in relation to how complaints are submitted to the WRC:

“18. -(1) The parent or guardian of a child or young person may present a complaint to a rights commissioner that the employer of the child or young person has contravened section 13 or 17 in relation to the child or young person”.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent engaged young people on zero-hours contracts and that this constituted a breach of their rights. The Respondent denies the allegation.  The complaint is made under the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act 1996, which sets out statutory controls governing the employment of children and young persons.

The issues raised by the Complainant do not relate to matters covered by the 1996 Act. The Act regulates specific aspects of employment for children and young persons but does not address contractual arrangements such as zero-hours contracts in the manner alleged.

Accordingly, the Complainant does not have the locus standi to bring a claim under this legislation.  The complaint is misconceived under the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act 1996 and is therefore not well-founded.

CA-00069900-005: This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000.

The Complainant gave evidence that he noticed that he was not paid the minimum wage initially on 06/10/2023.  He also submitted that this also happened again on 24/10/2024.  The Complainant outlined that he was penalised by the Respondent who restricted his client base and therefore he was earning less wages.  The Complainant outlined that he should receive €130 per day and commission based after that.  He feels that on occasions his commission is transferred to pay his daily rate.

The Law

Section 10 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 states that “An employer shall select as a pay reference period for the purposes of this Act a period not exceeding one calendar month”.

Section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 provides that:

“(1) Subject to subsection (2), an employee may request from his or her employer a written statement of the employee's average hourly rate of pay for any pay reference period (other than the employee's current pay reference period) falling within the 12-month period immediately preceding the request.

(2) An employee shall not make a request under subsection (1) in respect of any pay reference period during which the hourly rate of pay of the employee was on average not less than 150 per cent calculated in accordance with section 20, or such other percentage as may be prescribed, of the national minimum hourly rate of pay or where the request would be frivolous or vexatious.

(3) A request under subsection (1) shall be in writing and identify the pay reference period or periods to which it relates.

(4) The employer shall, within 4 weeks after receiving the employee's request, give to the employee a statement in writing setting out in relation to the pay reference period or periods—

(a) details of reckonable pay components (including the value of all forms of remuneration) paid or allowed to the employee in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 1,

(b) the working hours of the employee calculated in accordance with section 8,

(c) the average hourly pay (including the value of forms of remuneration other than cash payments) actually paid or allowed to the employee, as determined in accordance with section 20, and

(d) the minimum hourly rate of pay to which the employee is entitled in accordance with this Act.

(5) A statement under subsection (4) shall be signed and dated by or on behalf of the employer and a copy shall be kept by the employer for a period of 15 months beginning on the date on which the statement was given by the employee.”

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant confirmed that he had not requested a pay reference period statement as required under section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act. I note the Complainant submitted his complaint form to the WRC on the 6th March 2025.  On that form in answer to the question “Have you and did you request a statement from your employer of your average hourly rate of pay for your pay reference period?” the Complainant ticked the ‘No’ box. 

Section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 deals with disputes about entitlement to the minimum hourly rate of pay. It stipulates:

“(1) For the purposes of this section, a dispute between an employee and his or her employer as to the employee's entitlements under this Act exists where the employee and his or her employer cannot agree on the appropriate entitlement of the employee to pay in accordance with this Act resulting in an alleged underpayment to the employee.

(2) The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission shall not entertain a dispute in relation to an employee's entitlements under this Act and, accordingly, shall not refer the dispute to an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015—

(a) unless the employee—

(i) has obtained under section 23 a statement of his or her average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period, or

(ii) having requested the statement, has not been provided with it within the time limited by that section for the employer to supply the information, and a period of 6 months (or such longer period, not exceeding 12 months, as the Adjudication Officer may allow) has not elapsed since that statement was obtained or time elapsed, as the case may be”.

Findings

It is clear that Section 24 makes it mandatory for an employee to request of their employer a statement of their average hourly rate of pay in respect of a relevant pay reference period, in order to pursue a dispute about his/her entitlements under the Act. As the Complainant has not obtained the statement as required by section 23 of the Act, which by virtue of section 24 is mandatory, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

In Mansion House Ltd v Izquierdo MWD043, the Labour Court commented as follows in relation to the approach of the WRC Adjudicator:

“For the sake of completeness, the Court should point out that where a claimant has failed to request a statement in accordance with Section 23(1), the appropriate course of action is to decline jurisdiction without prejudice to the claimants right to re-enter the same complaint having complied with the said section….”. 

I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint, which is aligned with the findings of the Labour Court above.  

CA-00069900-006:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001.

Section 9 (1) of this Act states “A part-time employee shall not, in respect of his or her conditions of employment, be treated in a less favourable manner than a comparable full-time employee”.

The Complainant submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 06/03/2025. The complaint concerned alleged mistreatment by the Respondent, arising from circumstances following an issue raised by the Complainant with the Respondent in 2018.

The Complainant works 36 hours per week across four days. He confirmed at the hearing that this working pattern was agreed at his own request. The Complainant asserted that, as a result of raising a contravention of the Act in 2018, he has been subjected to bullying and unfair treatment. He alleged that this treatment included being denied clients, isolated from colleagues, and suffering a consequential loss of income. Since raising an issue with the Respondent in 2018, he has been subjected to bullying in the form of client denial, workplace isolation, and reduced earnings.

The Respondent argued that the Complainant’s working pattern of 36 hours over four days was facilitated at his request and does not constitute part-time work within the meaning of the legislation. The issues raised by the Complainant refer back to 2018 and fall outside the statutory time limits provided for under the Act. No specific instance of alleged contravention has been identified within the cognisable period.

Under the legislation, a complaint must be submitted to the WRC within six months of the alleged contravention. This time limit may be extended for a further six months if the Complainant demonstrates reasonable cause for the delay. The complaint form was submitted on 06/03/2025. Accordingly, the cognisable period for consideration is from 06/09/2024 onwards.

The Complainant did not particularise any specific complaint that falls within this cognisable period. His allegations refer primarily to events from 2018, which are outside the permitted timeframe.

Furthermore, the Complainant’s agreed working pattern of 36 hours per week does not, on the evidence presented, establish that he was treated less favourably as a part-time worker compared with a full-time comparator.

I am therefore satisfied that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00069900-001:  This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing on 18/09/2025.

CA-00069900-002:  This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing on 18/09/2025.

CA-00069900-004:  I have decided that this complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00069900-005:  I have decided that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

CA-00069900-006:  I have decided that this complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00069900-007:  This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing on 18/09/2025.

CA-00069900-008:  This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing on 18/09/2025.

Minimum wage. Part-Time employee.  Bullying and harassment.