ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058051
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Viktoriia Voitova | Matteo Zanardo trading as Magico Bakery |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Self-Represented |
Complaint:
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-00070470-002 | 01/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/07/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1st April 2024. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly payment of €520. The Complainant’s employment ended on 31st March 2025.
On 1st April 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that she was not permitted to take breaks in contravention of the legislation. By response, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was permitted to take breaks at any stage during her shift and that no breach of the Act occurred.
A hearing in relation to this matter was convene for, and finalsed on, 22nd July 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.
Both parties issues extensive submission in advance of the hearing. As the Complainant’s submission related to numerous matters that are not justiciable under the impleaded legislation, it was explained that the hearing, and this subsequent decision, would relate to the issue of breaks only. The Complainant gave evidence in support of her complaint, while a Respondent gave evidence in defence.
No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.
|
Summary of the Complainant’s Case:
In evidence, the Complainant stated that she normally worked from five in the morning to at least two in the afternoon. She stated that she would often finish later, depending on the needs of the business. She stated that she would rarely get any form of break during this shift. In this regard, she stated that the bakery was so busy that there would be simply no time for a break. The Complainant submitted that no rosters were provided to her, with her hours of work being the same on most days. Finally, the Complainant stated that she never received a contract of employment or any other notice regarding her right to take breaks. |
Summary of the Respondent’s Case:
By response, the Respondent denied that the Complainant was not permitted to take breaks. While he accepted that the bakery was a busy environment, particularly in the mornings, staff would arrange their breaks amongst themselves. He stated that the staff would usually rotate these breaks amongst themselves to ensure everyone’s needs were met. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Regarding the present case, the Complainant has alleged that the Respondent did not schedule or permit her to take breaks in the course of her employment. By response, the Respondent submitted that all staff took breaks on the rota based system and that the same were provided for all employees. In this regard, Section 12 provides that, “(1) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes. (2) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 6 hours without allowing him or her a break of at least 30 minutes; such a break may include the break referred to in subsection (1).” Having regard to the foregoing, it is well established that an employer has a positive duty to ensure that employee are availing of rest periods as provided for in Section 12. The uncontested evidence of the Complainant in this regard was that she did not receive such breaks during her employment. While the Respondent stated that the Complainant could have taken a break if she wanted one, this was contradicted by the testimony of the Complainant. It is further noted that the Respondent did not provide any scheduled breaks, or rosters of any description. It is further noted that the Respondent did not provide any written confirmation of the Complainant’s rights and their duties in this regard. Having regard to the accumulation of the foregoing points, I find that the complaint is well-founded and the Complainant’s application succeeds. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find that the complaint I well-founded. Regarding redress, I award the Complainant the sum of €550 in compensation for the breaches of the Act. |
Dated: 31st October 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Daily rest period, rosters, information |