DWT2540

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00053326 (CA-00065044-002)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court on the 3 January 2025.    A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 23 September 2025.    The following is the Labour Court's Decision.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Dan Nechita against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer made under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (“the Act”) in relation to an alleged breach of section 12 of the Act.

The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was not well founded. 

An appeal was lodged to the Labour Court on 3 January 2025 and a Labour Court hearing held on 23 September 2025. The appeal is linked to DWT2539 and PWD2537, which were heard on the same day. At the hearing, the Complainant withdrew an appeal of a decision made under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 in relation to Sunday pay. 

For ease, the parties are referred to in this Decision as they were before the Adjudication Officer. Hence, Dan Nechita is referred to as ‘the Complainant’ and his employer, Fingal County Council, is referred to as ‘the Respondent’.  

Summary Position of the Complainant

The Complainant commenced employment as a Night Watchman with Fingal County Council in July 2020. He works alone and contends that he has received no rest breaks since the commencement of his employment.

Summary Position of the Respondent

There are facilities on site to enable the complainant to avail of his breaks. The Complainant was paid a meal allowance and had full flexibility to take breaks during his shift whenever he chooses. This practice was explained to him by his line manager when he commenced in the role.  

The Council is satisfied that it has complied with the relevant provision of the Act.

Applicable Law

Section 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 provides as follows: -

Rests and intervals at work.

12.— (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).

(3) The Minister may by regulations provide, as respects a specified class or classes of employee, that the minimum duration of the break to be allowed to such an employee under subsection (2) shall be more than 30 minutes (but not more than 1 hour).

(4) A break allowed to an employee at the end of the working day shall not be regarded as satisfying the requirement contained in subsection (1) or (2).

Deliberations

The Court’s jurisdiction is confined to assessing alleged contraventions of the Act that occurred in the six-month period prior to the Complainant lodging his complaint to the WRC on 29 July 2024, which is the period from 30 January 2024 to 29 July 2024. The Court has no jurisdiction to assess alleged contraventions that occurred prior to 30 January 2024.

The Complainant asserts that he did not receive his rest break entitlements as required under the Act.

The Complainant works alone as a nightwatchman and his shifts are of 15.5 hours duration.

The Complainant’s sworn evidence was that his employer never informed him about his entitlement to take breaks; no information about rest breaks was provided to him in his contract of employment; he was not aware that he could take rest breaks during his shifts; he remained sitting in front of a monitor for the duration of his 15.5 hour shifts; he ate his food while looking at the monitor; he never took a rest break to avail of toilet facilities; he had never taken a rest break as provided for in the Act.

While the Court did not find the Complainant’s evidence that he had never taken a rest break of any sort during his 15.5 hour shifts to be plausible, his testimony was not challenged by the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to provide any evidence to support its contention that no contravention of the Act occurred.

The Respondent is required by Section 25(1) of the Act to maintain records of a worker’s hours of work, and rest breaks.  Section 25(4) of the Act provides that failure to do so, places the burden of proving compliance with the Act with the employer. 

Having regard to the above, the Court finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the complaint is well founded. The Court directs the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €500 in respect of the breach of Section 12 of the Act.

Decision

For the reasons set out above the Court finds that the complaint is well founded.

The Court directs the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €500 in respect of the breach of Section 12 of the Act.

The Adjudication Officer’s decision is varied accordingly.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
AR	______________________
26 September 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mr Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.