Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Darcey  Nic Craith

Gaelachas Teoranta

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00066201-001

23/09/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00066201-002

23/09/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00066201-004

23/09/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00066201-005

23/09/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00066201-008

23/09/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00066201-009

23/09/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00066201-010

23/09/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00066201-011

23/09/2024

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

CA-00066201-014

23/09/2024

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

CA-00066201-015

23/09/2024

The Complainant was an employee with the Respondent from 28 August 2022.  She alleged that she was paid less than the minimum wage, that she did not receive compensation for working on a Sunday, that she did not receive her paid holiday/annual leave entitlement, that she did not receive her public holiday entitlement.  She also alleged that she was paid less than the amount due to her on 19 June 2024, that she did not receive her daily rest periods, that she did not get breaks, that she was required to work more than the maximum permitted number of hours, that she had to work excessive night hours, that she did not receive her annual leave entitlement, that she did not receive her public holiday entitlement, that she did not receive a statement in writing of her Terms of Employment and that she was not notified in writing of changes to her Terms of Employment. 

The Respondent provided boarding services for students of an Irish speaking primary and secondary school.  It is a Friendly Society run by a Board of Governors.  It was the Respondent’s position that it did not have adequate records to address the complaints.

General background:

The Complainant submitted that the Friendly Society of The Respondentwas set up in 1944 providing boarding services for students of Coláiste An Phiarsaigh (Secondary) and Scoil Na nÓg (primary 5th, 6th 7th classes) Irish medium schools.  She submitted that this was a Friendly Society run by a Board of Governors and she confirmed that Mr O’Catháin had been the Acting Chair for quite some time.  She confirmed that Mr O’Catháin was a qualified Solicitor and she stated that the Board appoints/instructs professional service individuals and companies to act on its behalf. 

The Complainant submitted that Ms A was in the position of Secretary to the Board since 1973.  She submitted that she understood that Ms A had been an employee prior to that since around the time of its setup in 1958.  The Complainant outlined Ms A’s role as dealing with staff and administrative issues on behalf of the Board.  She stated by 2024 Ms A had been in post for many years (circa 60 years) and that her preferred form of communication was oral.  The Complainant stated that she seldom responded to emails and needed reminding and assistance, yet she always had the best interests of students at heart.  The Complainant confirmed that Ms A reported to the Board and for the Respondent to now suggest that Ms A acted without instruction, or without the knowledge of the Board of Trustees was refuted.  She submitted that from February 2024, Ms A was assisted by Mr B, who reported to the Board of Trustees.

The Complainant submitted that up until 2022 the role of Feitheoir (supervisor) was undertaken by trainee teachers on placement from third level institutions and that this arrangement ceased in Summer 2022.  She submitted that in August 2022 past pupils of Coláiste An Phiarsaigh were asked to undertake these duties. 

The Complainant submitted that from the outset of her employment she consistently requested to be paid in line with legislative requirements, requested the required and appropriate staffing so that the supervisors could take appropriate breaks and provide appropriate supervision to the children in their care.  She submitted that she asked for payslips and a Contract of Employment.  She further stated that in hindsight she now knows that she should have put all of these requests in writing, but that in the context that Ms A’s preferred communication was oral, that was how matters were dealt with.

The Complainant stated that there were ongoing issues with pay, cover and terms and conditions, and the general running of boarding house services for all supervisors.  She submitted that on 2 February 2024, the Head Supervisor, Mr O’Ceallaigh, met with Mr B (representing the Board of The Respondent) to discuss the ongoing issues with the running of the boarding house.  She stated that there was a specific heading for pay to supervisors in the letter which stated that they were not paid holiday pay despite asking, were not being paid correctly every week, were not receiving payslips and had issues with pay owed to them.  The Complainant provided a copy of the correspondence relating to that discussion.  She submitted that the letter also stated that the staff did not receive a Contract of Employment despite asking for one and that there was no clear guideline with regard to their duties and that they were left to deal with all issues as they escalated without support or guidance. 

The Complainant stated that staffing issues were also raised at that time but that the supervisors were left to fill in all shifts because there were not enough staff on the roster.  She submitted that she could not take breaks, as children could not be left unattended.  The Complainant stated that the Head Supervisor brought those issues to Mr B’s attention and was under the impression that they were being then presented to the Board of The Respondent to be resolved. 

The Complainant submitted that a decision to suspend boarding services was made but was not communicated to her by The Respondent and that she received this information from students in her care on arrival to work on the evening of 10 April 2024.  She stated that the students had been advised by the School Principals on that day.  Additionally, she stated that a letter drafted and signed by Mr O’Catháin, as Chair of the Board of Trustees, was issued to the parents on that day also and she provided a copy of that letter.  The Complainant stated that she wrote to Mr O’Catháin by email on 4 June 2024 and referred to the failure of the Board to notify her as a staff member and she provided a copy of that correspondence.

The Complainant submitted that on learning that the boarding facilities were to cease, and reflecting on how the information had reached her, she finally took a decision to write formally requesting that her pay and Terms and Conditions be corrected.  She stated that she did not take this decision lightly, that it was a last resort, and that she had put a lot of time and effort into checking all of the information and calculations to aid The Respondent in settling matters.  She submitted that this however yielded no results and that as a consequence she wrote on three more occasions requesting an update or an answer.  She stated that finally on 23 September 2024 she submitted her complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission and she informed Mr O’Catháin and The Respondent by email of her intention in that regard.

Boarding House Working Hours:

The Complainant submitted that as Lead Supervisor of the girls dormitory, it was her responsibility to fill in for shifts or be available if problems arose to deal with them and assist other supervisors with issues.  This included being available to take calls from parents, supervisors, School Principals etc, during all non-working hours.  She submitted that during non-school hours, children had to be supervised at all times (15:30pm – 09:15am next day, equal to a total of 17 hours and 15 minutes).  The boarding house was open from 6pm on Sunday evening until 3:30pm on the following Friday afternoon.  Children were never to be left unattended.  Children ranged in age from 11 to 18 years.  She stated that these hours were not decided upon by the Supervisors, that this was a system that was set up by The Respondent. 

The Complainant further submitted that from 3:30pm to 8pm there were around 75 children overall (including day boarders) and a total of 3-4 supervisors on duty.  She submitted that from 8pm to 09:15am there would be 23-27 children in the girl’s dormitories, spread across two floors, with primary school children on one floor and secondary school children on another.  She stated that two supervisors were rostered on duty and that children were never to be left unattended.  She submitted that in those circumstances, the supervisors did not receive a break as there were not enough supervisors to cover the ratio of children to supervisors.  She stated that she sent an email to The Respondent (Ms A) requesting a third supervisor to be put on duty to relieve the stress and workload but that despite numerous verbal requests, her request remained unanswered.

The Complainant submitted that she felt a burden of responsibility to the children in her care, especially the primary school children who required a level of emotional support and direction, with social and educational aspects during their time in Scoil Na nÓg.  She stated that nobody was dealing with the issues and despite numerous requests no solution was forthcoming from the Board.. 

CA-00066201-001: (Minimum Wage)

The Complainant contended that she was paid less thatn the minimum wage.  In her complaint form, she confirmed that she was paid approximately €6.23 per hour for the night shift.  For Sundays/bank holidays, between 6pm and 09:15am, a period of 15 hours and 15 minutes, she received €95, which equated to €6.23 per hour.  She further confirmed that the night shift, Monday to Thursday from 8pm to 09:15am, a period of 13 hours and 15 minutes, she was paid the amount of €85 which equated to €6.42 per hour.

The Complainant outlined that during the time she worked for The Respondent, she requested on numerous occasions that her compensation be paid in line with minimum wage requirements.  She confirmed that on 4 June 2024 she wrote to the employer regarding her pay and that she wrote again on 14 June 2024 and 10 July 2024.  The Complainant confirmed that she received a response on 10 July stating that she would get a response in due course.  She submitted that 15 weeks had passed and that she had received no update on the progress of her claim.  She submitted that her work involved supervising homework and activities and sleeping in the boarding house where she would be available during the night to deal with sick children or any events that presented during her shift.  She calculated an estimated amount owing based on monies received and revenue records as she confirmed she never received a payslip.  She stated that the estimated monies owed was €12,641.78c and she confirmed that this did not include holiday or public holiday pay owed which she stated was subject of a separate claim. 

The Complainant submitted that from the outset of her employment she consistently requested to be paid in line with legislative requirements, ie the minimum wage.  She submitted that she was 19 years old when she commenced employment in 2022 and as such, rates should have been increased in line with age and prevailing updated legislative requirements.  She confirmed that she asked for payslips and a Contract of Employment.  She submitted that in hindsight she now knew that she should have put all of these requests in writing. 

She submitted that she rejected that the Board was unaware of these requests or their obligations regarding rates of pay as Ms A reported directly to the Board.  She submitted that the Board is required to act within the law, that it was not in the gift of The Respondent to decide to pay less than the minimum rate set.  She submitted that the Board employs accountants, HR professionals and auditors, who also must act within the law and she confirmed that the Acting Chair of the Board, Mr O’Catháin, was a trained Solicitor.  The Complainant submitted that The Respondent had not dealt with the claims in her letter, sent via email on 4th June 2024. 

CA-00066201-002: (Sunday Pay)

In her complaint form, the Complainant stated that she worked a night shift on Sundays and bank holidays from 6pm to 09:15am, a total of 15 hours and 15 minutes and that for that period she was paid an amount of €95 which equated to €6.23 per hour.  She confirmed that when she worked a night shift from Monday to Thursday, from 8pm to 09:15am, a total period of 13 hours and 15 minutes, she received a total amount of €85 which equated to €6.42 per hour.  She stated that this demonstrated that she received a lower hourly rate of pay on a Sunday than on a weekday. 

In her submission the Complainant outlined that she rejected that the Board was unaware of the requirement to pay in line with legislative requirements, she stated that Ms A reported to the Board and that the Board was required to act within the law and that it was not within their gift to decide to pay less than the minimum wage set for Sunday pay.  She confirmed that the Board employed accounts, HR professionals and auditors who also must act within the law. 

The Complainant confirmed that she had not received Sunday pay in accordance with legislative requirements during the course of her employment and that she had in fact been paid an hourly rate on Sunday which was less than that paid on a weekday.  She confirmed that her hourly rate for a Sunday was €6.23 per hour and her weekday hourly rate was €6.42 per hour.  She stated that she had outlined this in her email of 4 June to the Respondent and they had not dealt with her claims.

CA-00066201-004: (Holiday Pay)

The Complainant alleged that she did not receive her paid holiday/annual leave entitlements.  In her Complainant form she outlined that she was not paid the total amount of holiday pay.  She confirmed that during the time she worked for the Respondent she requested on numerous occasions that her compensation be paid in line with holiday pay requirements. 

On 4 June 2024 she wrote to her employer regarding her pay.  On 24 June she received confirmation that that correspondence had been received.  On 14 June 2024 she wrote again to the Respondent but received no response.  She wrote again on 10 July 2024 and she received a response on the same date saying that she would get a response in due course.  The Complainant outlined that 14 weeks had passed and she had received no update on the progress of her claim.  The Complainant submitted that based on her calculations of hours worked from the rosters and revenue records, she estimated that she was owed the total sum of €2012.38.  She confirmed that as she had never received a payslip, she had based her calculations from rosters and revenue records. 

In her submission the Complainant confirmed her condition as set out in the complaint form.  She further confirmed that she rejected that the Board was unaware of the requirement to pay holiday pay in line with legislation.  She submitted that Ms A reported to the Board and that the Board was required to act within the law and that it was not in the gift of the Respondent to decide to withhold holiday pay owing.  She submitted that the Board employed accountants and auditors who were also obliged to act within the law. 

The Complainant stated that she refuted that the Board was unaware of the circumstances of this complaint.  She stated that in his email of 2 February 2024, on behalf of the supervisors, and following a meeting earlier, that Mr O’Ceallaigh had addressed this issue.  The Complainant confirmed that she had received holiday pay in December 2022 and confirmed that this was demonstrated in the revenue records.  She stated that despite numerous requests she did not receive holiday pay for 2023 or 2024 but to suggest that no record exists was inaccurate.  She stated that based on her calculations of hours worked from roster records and revenue records (as she did not receive payslips), she estimated that she was owed the sum total of €2,012.38 and that she set out the detail of that in her email to the Respondent, of 4 June 2024.  She confirmed again that the Respondent had not dealt with the claims set out in her email of that date. 

CA-00066201-005: (Public Holidays)

The Complainant contended that she had not received her public holiday entitlement.  She submitted that there were 18 public holidays over the course of her employment and that each of these shifts were 14.25 hours in duration.  She confirmed that she received €6.32 per hour for 14.25-hour shift and that she was not compensated in pay or hours worked for those shifts.  She stated that based on her age and the minimum wage at the time, she calculated that she was owed the sum of €2,393.64 in relation to public holiday pay due to her.

In her submission, the Complainant submitted that she rejected that the Board was unaware of its obligation to pay public holiday rates of pay.  She submitted that Ms A reported to the Board and the Board is required to act within the law and that it was not in the gift of the Respondent to decide to withhold public holiday pay.  She submitted that the Board employed accountants, HR professionals and auditors who were also obliged to act within the law. 

The Complainant submitted that there were 18 public holidays over the course of her employment.  She stated that each of these shifts was 14.25 hours and that she received €6.32 per hour.  She stated that she was not compensated in either pay or hours of work for those shifts and that based on her age and the minimum wage at the time, she calculated that the public holiday amount owing to her was €2,393.64.  She confirmed that she had set out the full detail of the calculation in her letter to the Respondent on 4 June 2024.

The Complainant further submitted that she refuted that the Board was unaware of this issue, and she drew attention to the email of 7 February 2024 from Mr O’Ceallaigh on behalf of the supervisors, addressing this issue to a representative of the Board.  She further submitted that to suggest that no records exist was inaccurate and she confirmed that the Respondent had not dealt with her claim as set out in her email of 4 June 2024.

CA-0066201-008: (Daily Rest Periods)

The Complainant contended that she did not get daily rest periods.  In her complaint form she confirmed that a night shift on a Sunday or bank holiday was from 6pm to 09:15am, a total of 15 hours and 15 minutes, and that a night shift worked on Monday to Thursday was from 8pm to 09:15am, a total of 13 hours and 15 minutes.  She confirmed that the day shift Monday to Thursday was from 5:30pm to 8pm and that she would often work 17.45 hours consecutively and have a six-hour rest period before her next 17.45 hour shift.  She outlined that she would also commonly work 13.25-hour shifts and have an 11 hour rest period before her next 13.25 hour shift. 

In her submission the Complainant submitted that she rejected that the Board was unaware of its obligation to staff in relation to rest periods.  She stated that Ms A reported to the Board and the Board is required to act within the law, ie that it was not within the gift of the Respondent to decide to act beyond the law.  The Complainant submitted that the Board employed a HR specialist who was also obliged to act within the law and that Mr O’Catháin was a qualified Solicitor and was surely knowledgeable about such matters.  The Complainant again set out her various shift arrangements and rest periods as previously outlined in her complaint form.

The Complainant also submitted that the supervisors did not schedule their own hours, that rosters were set with reference to the requirement to have supervision in place for children.  She submitted that there wasn’t enough staff to cover the work, that she had requested more staff on a regular basis but that the matter went unaddressed.  She provided a copy of an email of 18 March 2024 where she brought this matter to attention.  She stated that children could not be left unattended, that she took her role seriously and would never leave children alone or unattended at any time.  She submitted that there were numerous entries in the Incident Record Book and the digital shared folder which were all time and date stamped to support her contention.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent had set up a rostering system and that the Respondent suggestion that supervisors did not have to work in accordance with rostering system was in her view amusing.  She confirmed again that the children could not be left unattended and that had there been more staff, start and finish times could have been staggered.  However, she stated that as things stood, this was not possible and therefore the only other alternative would have been to leave children unsupervised, and she posed the question that the Respondent suggestion was that this was what should have occurred. 

The Complainant submitted that the supervisors were not casual staff as per the definition set out in law, that records showed that she worked an average of 40 hours per week during term time and she provided a copy of a roster to verify that position.  She also confirmed that in her view, to suggest that no records existed, was totally inaccurate and she confirmed that the Respondent had not dealt with her claims as set out in her email of 4 June 2024.

CA-0066201-009: (Breaks)

The Complainant contended that she did not get breaks.  The Complainant confirmed that she worked shifts ranging from 13.25 hours to 17.45 hours and that she never received a break as children could not be left unsupervised or alone at any time.  In her submission the Complainant confirmed the duration of her shifts and she rejected that the Board was unaware of its obligations to staff in relation to working hours. She submitted that Ms. A reported to the Board and that the Board employed HR specialists who would understand the legal requirements.  She also noted the Chairperson’s legal qualifications.  In addition, the Complainant rejected the Respondent position that it did not have records and noted that the roster book was kept in the office.

The Complainant further submitted that there were not enough staff rostered on to facilitate breaks while maintaining adequate supervision of the children in their care.

CA-00066201-010 (Working above Maximum Hours)

The Complainant contended that she was required to work more than the maximum permitted number of hours per week.  In her complaint form she stated that she worked the following shift patterns:

Sunday/Bank holiday      6 pm to 9.15 am (15 hrs and 15 mins) [Night Shift]

Weekday                            8 pm to 9.15 am (13 hrs and 15 mins) [Night Shift]

Weekday                            5.30 pm to 8 pm {day time shift]

She stated that she often worked 17.45 hours consecutively, partially overnight and that she typically worked between 24-32 hours a week between the hours of midnight and 7 am.

CA-00066201-011 (Excessive Night Hours)

The Complainant contended that she was required to work excessive night hours.  In her complaint form she stated that she worked the following shift patterns:

Sunday/Bank holiday      6 pm to 9.15 am (15 hrs and 15 mins) [Night Shift]

Weekday                            8 pm to 9.15 am (13 hrs and 15 mins) [Night Shift]

Weekday                            5.30 pm to 8 pm {day time shift]

She stated that she often worked 17.45 hours consecutively, partially overnight in a 24-hour period.

CA-00066201-014 (Statement of Terms of Employment)

The Complainant contended that she did not receive a statement in writing of her terms of employment since the commencement of her employment on 28 august 2022.  She stated that she made numerous requests but that she never received a statement or a contract of employment.

CA-00066201-015 (Notification of Changes to Terms of Employment)

The Complainant contended that she was not notified in writing of a change to her terms of employment.

In her complaint form she stated that in September 2023 her Sunday night shift start time was changed from 7 pm to 6 pm and that she was not notified in writing of that change.  She also stated that she was not notified orally of the change, that it merely appeared on the roster.

The Respondent submitted that the boarding house was managed by Ms A until May 2024 when the decision was made to suspend boarding services in the schools.  The Respondent submitted that unfortunately Ms A was not in a position to assist the Respondent further in responding to these complaints on account of ill health.

The Respondent submitted that as part of the process after the decision was made to suspend boarding services, the Respondent engaged the services of the Society’s accountants and HR Consultants and the normal redundancy protocols were followed as appropriate.  The Respondent submitted that employment information was gathered and analysed and those entitled to receive redundancy received same.  The Respondent submitted that the Board was somewhat disappointed to have received these complaints as full consideration was given to all who were involved in the provision of boarding services, however, the Respondent stated that it would set out its position in relation to each of the complaints below.

CA-00066201-001: (Minimum Wage)

The Respondent submitted that the rates of pay were agreed by the Complainant with Ms A and that the Board of the Respondent was not made aware of any issues in relation to pay arrangements for boarding.  The Respondent submitted that it was not aware of arrangements made directly between the Complainant and Ms A, nor of any complaint made by the Complainant during her employment regarding pay and conditions. 

The Respondent stated that it could not find any correspondence, either email or otherwise, regarding the issue.  The Respondent stated that it had responded to the Complainant on receipt of the initial complaint and advised that it was looking into the matter.  The Respondent stated that this took some time on account of school closures, holidays and Ms A’s ill health.  The Respondent stated that pay slips were forwarded to the Complainant by the Respondent when this error was brought to the attention of the Board by the Complainant. 

CA-00066201-002: (Sunday Pay)

The Respondent submitted that the rates of pay were agreed by the Complainant with Ms A and that the Board was not made aware of any issues in relation to pay arrangements (to include Sunday Pay). The Board of the Respondent submitted it was not aware of the arrangements made directly between the Complainant and Ms A, nor of any complaint made by the Complainant during her employment with the Respondent regarding pay (to include Sunday pay) and conditions.  The Board submitted that it could not find any correspondence regarding the issue.  The Respondent submitted that many of the supervisors were casual workers, who chose their own times and dates for work. 

The Respondent Board stated that it had responded to the Complainant on receipt of the initial complaint and advised that it was looking into the matter.  The Respondent stated that this took some time on account of school closure, holidays and Ms A’s ill health. 

CA-00066201-004: (Holiday Pay)

The Respondent submitted that the rates of pay were agreed by the Complainant with Ms A and that the Board was not made aware of any issues in relation to pay arrangements (to include holiday pay) for boarding.  The Board of the Respondent submitted it was not aware of the arrangements made directly between the Complainant and Ms A, nor of any complaint made by the Complainant during her employment with the Respondent regarding pay (to include Sunday pay) and conditions.  The Board submitted that it could not find any correspondence regarding the issue.  The Respondent submitted that many of the supervisors were casual workers, who chose their own times and dates for work. 

The Respondent Board stated that it had responded to the Complainant on receipt of the initial complaint and advised that it was looking into the matter.  The Respondent stated that this took some time on account of school closure, holidays and Ms A’s ill health. 

CA-00066201-005: (Public Holidays):

The Respondent submitted that the rates of pay were agreed by the Complainant with Ms A and that the Board was not made aware of any issues in relation to pay arrangements (to include public holiday pay) for boarding.  The Board of the Respondent submitted it was not aware of the arrangements made directly between the Complainant and Ms A, nor of any complaint made by the Complainant during her employment with the Respondent regarding pay (to include Sunday pay) and conditions.  The Board submitted that it could not find any correspondence regarding the issue.  The Respondent submitted that many of the supervisors were casual workers, who chose their own times and dates for work. 

The Respondent Board stated that it had responded to the Complainant on receipt of the initial complaint and advised that it was looking into the matter.  The Respondent stated that this took some time on account of school closure, holidays and Ms A’s ill health. 

CA-0066201-008: (Daily Rest Periods)

The Respondent submitted that the Terms and Conditions were agreed by the Complainant with Ms A.  The Board of the Respondent was not made aware of any issues in relation to rest periods.  The Board submitted that it was also not aware of the arrangements made directly between the Complainant and Ms A, nor of any complaint made by the Complainant during her employment with the Respondent regarding rest periods.  The Respondent submitted that many of the supervisors were casual workers who chose own times and dates for work.  The Respondent submitted that it could not find any correspondence, email or otherwise, regarding the issue. 

CA-0066201-009: (Breaks)

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not required to work 13.25 – 17.45 hours.  The Respondent further submitted that the Terms and Conditions were agreed between the Complainant and Ms A.   The Respondent submitted that the Board was not made aware of any issues in relation to rest periods and it was not aware of any arrangements made directly between the Complainant and Ms A, nor of any complaint made by the Complainant during her employment with the Respondent regarding rest periods.  The Respondent submitted that many of the supervisors were casual workers who chose own times and dates for work.  The Respondent submitted that it could not find any correspondence, email or otherwise, regarding the issue. 

CA-00066201-010: (Working above Maximum Hours)

The Respondent submitted that there was not enough information in this complaint.  The Respondent further submitted that the Terms and Conditions were agreed by the Complainant with Ms A.   The Respondent submitted that the Board was not made aware of any issues in relation to rest periods and it was not aware of any arrangements made directly between the Complainant and Ms A, nor of any complaint made by the Complainant during her employment with the Respondent regarding rest periods.  The Respondent submitted that many of the supervisors were casual workers who chose own times and dates for work.  The Respondent submitted that it could not find any correspondence, email or otherwise, regarding the issue.

CA-00066201-011: (Excessive Night Hours)

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not ever required to work 17.45 hours without a break.  The Respondent submitted that there was not enough information to give a full response to this complaint.

The Respondent submitted that the Terms and Conditions were agreed by the Complainant with Ms A.   The Respondent submitted that the Board was not made aware of any issues in relation to hours of work and it was not aware of any arrangements made directly between the Complainant and Ms A, nor of any complaint made by the Complainant during her employment with the Respondent regarding hours of work.  The Respondent submitted that many of the supervisors were casual workers who chose own times and dates for work.  The Respondent submitted that it could not find any correspondence, email or otherwise, regarding the issue. 

CA-00066201-14: (Statement of Terms of Employment)

The Respondent submitted that all terms were agreed between the Complainant and Ms A.   The Respondent submitted that the Board was not made aware of any issues in relation to terms and it was not aware of any arrangements made directly between the Complainant and Ms A, nor of any complaint made by the Complainant during her employment with the Respondent regarding terms.  The Respondent submitted that many of the supervisors were casual workers who chose own times and dates for work.  The Respondent submitted that it could not find any correspondence, email or otherwise, regarding the issue. 

CA-00066201-15: (Notification of Changes to Terms of Employment)

The Respondent submitted that there was not enough information in relation to this complaint to provide a response.

CA-00066201-001: (Minimum Wage)

Section 24 (2) of the Act provides:

“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 rights commissioner may allow) has not elapsed since that statement was obtained or time elapsed, as the case may be,

or

(b) where, in respect of the same alleged under-payment, the employer is or has been—

(i) the subject of investigation by an inspector under section 33 or 34, or

(ii) prosecuted for an offence under section 35.”

This complaint was received 23 September 2024.  A reading of Section 24(2) above outlines the clear obligations on employees proceeding with a complaint under the Minimum Wage Act. 

The Complainant had not received or sought a statement of her hourly rate when she referred this complaint.  Her correspondence of 4 June does not meet the requirements of the Act. I therefore find I do not have jurisdiction in the matter.

CA-00066201-002: (Sunday Pay)

The Complainant alleged that she did not receive any premium for working on a Sunday and that in fact her hourly rate for working on a Sunday was lower than the hourly rate that applied mid-week. 

The Organisation of Working Time makes very clear the obligation on the employer to retain records for a period of “3 years from the date of their making” and furthermore provides that where an employer does not retain such records “the onus of proving, in any proceedings before a Rights Commissioner or the Labour Court, that the said provision was complied with in relation to the employee shall lie on the employer.”

The Respondent position was that it had no records to demonstrate what had occurred and that, in any event the Complainant had agreed her terms at the outset of the employment relationship with Ms. A.

The Act also provides that the Sunday premium may be incorporated into the basic rate of pay where there is a specific provision in the contract. 

I noted that the Respondent did not have any contractual documentation to present and did not present such an argument. 

Furthermore, I noted that Section 14 of the act sates:

“14.—(1) An employee who is required to work on a Sunday (and the fact of his or her having to work on that day has not otherwise been taken account of in the determination of his or her pay) shall be compensated by his or her employer for being required so to work by the following means, namely—

(a) by the payment to the employee of an allowance of such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(b) by otherwise increasing the employee’s rate of pay by such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(c) by granting the employee such paid time off from work as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(d) by a combination of two or more of the means referred to in the preceding paragraphs.”

In these circumstances I am very much persuaded by the evidence of the Complainant that she did not receive Sunday premium, particularly in the context that her rate of pay was lower on a Sunday than mid-week and in all the circumstances I find her complaint to be well founded.

I have established that 33% is a common rate applied to comparable employees in the service industry who are often paid the minimum rate of pay or a lower rate and accordingly, I find that this should have been awarded to the Complainant on top of her mid week pay rate. 

CA-00066201-004: (Holiday Pay)

The Complainant claimed payment for annual leave for the duration of her employment from 28 August 2022 until the termination of her employment.  I noted her position that she had not received any paid annual leave or pay in lieu of annual leave throughout her employment.  I noted also, the Respondent position that it did not have records to confirm it’s position but that the arrangements in place were agreed between the Complainant and Ms. A at the commencement of the employment relationship.

Section 25- (1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act states that “An employer shall keep, at the premises or place where his or her employee works or, if the employee works at two or more premises or places, the premises or place from which the activities that the employee is employed to carry on are principally directed or controlled, such records, in such form, if any, as may be prescribed, as will show whether the provisions of this Act and, where applicable, [the activities of Doctors in Training Regulations] are being complied with in relation to the employee and those records shall be retained by the employer for at least 3 years from the date of their making.”

Section (3) and (4) further outlined that:

(3) An employer who, without reasonable cause, fails to comply with subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence

(4) Without prejudice to subsection (3), where an employer fails to keep records under subsection (1) in respect of his or her compliance with a particular provision of this Act or the [Activities of Doctors in Training Regulations] in relation to an employee, the onus of proving, in proceedings before a Rights Commissioner or the Labour Court, that the said provision was complied with in relation to the employee shall lie on the employer.”

The Respondent has provided no evidence to show how the Complainant’s entitlement to annual leave was addressed throughout her employment.  In that context I find that the Complainant had an entitlement to receive paid annual leave.

Consequently, I must now consider her entitlement and what redress is appropriate in the circumstances.

The entitlement to paid statutory annual leave is set out in section 9-(1) of the Act as follows:

“Subject to the First schedule (which contains transitional provision in respect of the leave yers 1996 to 1998), an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this act referred to as “annual leave”) equal to-

(a)   4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment),

(b)   one-third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours, or

(c)    8 per cent. of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks):

Provided that if more than one of the preceding paragraphs is applicable in the case concerned and the period of annual leave of the employee, determined in accordance with each of those paragraphs, is not identical, the annual leave to which the employee shall be entitled shall be equal to whichever of those periods is the greater.

(1A) For the purposes of this section, a day that an employee was absent from work due to illness shall, if the employee provided to his or her employer a certificate of a registered medical practitioner in respect of that illness, be deemed to be a day on which the employee was—

(a) at his or her place of work or at his or her employer’s disposal, and

(b) carrying on or performing the activities or duties of his or her work.]

(2) A day which would be regarded as a day of annual leave shall, if the employee concerned is ill on that day and furnishes to his or her employer a certificate of a registered medical practitioner in respect of his or her illness, not be regarded, for the purposes of this Act, as a day of annual leave.

(3) The annual leave of an employee who works 8 or more months in a leave year shall, subject to the provisions of any employment regulation order, registered employment agreement, collective agreement or any agreement between the employee and his or her employer, include an unbroken period of 2 weeks.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (2) or any other provision of this Act but without prejudice to the employee’s entitlements under subsection (1), the reference in subsection (3) to an unbroken period of 2 weeks includes a reference to such a period that includes one or more public holidays or days on which the employee concerned is ill.

(5) An employee shall, for the purposes of subsection (1), be regarded as having worked on a day of annual leave the hours he or she would have worked on that day had it not been a day of annual leave.

(6) References in this section to a working week shall be construed as references to the number of days that the employee concerned usually works in a week

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 28 August 2022 and worked 42 hours per week.  She should therefore have received 18 days paid annual leave in each full year of employment and should have received a prop rata entitlement for each part year worked. 

Time limit

I note that 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.”

However, I further note the CJEU decisionin King v Sash Windows (In Case C‑214/16, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), made by decision of 30 March 2016, received at the Court on 18 April 2016, in the proceedings Conley King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd, Richard Dollar, as follows:

“First, according to the Court’s settled case-law, the right to paid annual leave cannot be interpreted restrictively (see judgment of 22 April 2010 Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols, C‑486/08, EU:C:2010:215, paragraph 29). Thus, any derogation from the European Union system for the organisation of working time put in place by Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted in such a way that its scope is limited to what is strictly necessary in order to safeguard the interests which that derogation protects (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 October 2010, Union Syndicale Solidaires Isère, C‑428/09, EU:C:2010:612, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).

59      In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, protection of the employer’s interests does not seem strictly necessary and, accordingly, does not seem to justify derogation from a worker’s entitlement to paid annual leave.

60      It must be noted that the assessment of the right of a worker, such as Mr King, to paid annual leave is not connected to a situation in which his employer was faced with periods of his absence which, as with long-term sickness absence, would have led to difficulties in the organisation of work. On the contrary, the employer was able to benefit, until Mr King retired, from the fact that he did not interrupt his professional activity in its service in order to take paid annual leave.

61      Second, even if it were proved, the fact that Sash WW considered, wrongly, that Mr King was not entitled to paid annual leave is irrelevant. Indeed, it is for the employer to seek all information regarding his obligations in that regard.

62      Against that background, as is clear from paragraph 34 of the present judgment, the very existence of the right to paid annual leave cannot be subject to any preconditions whatsoever, that right being conferred directly on the worker by Directive 2003/88. Thus, as regards the case in the main proceedings, it is irrelevant whether or not, over the years, Mr King made requests for paid annual leave (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 June 2014, Bollacke, C‑118/13, EU:C:2014:1755, paragraphs 27 and 28).

63      It follows from the above that, unlike in a situation of accumulation of entitlement to paid annual leave by a worker who was unfit for work due to sickness, an employer that does not allow a worker to exercise his right to paid annual leave must bear the consequences.

64      Third, in such circumstances, in the absence of any national statutory or collective provision establishing a limit to the carry-over of leave in accordance with the requirements of EU law (see, to that effect, judgments of 22 November 2011, KHS, C‑214/10, EU:C:2011:761 and of 3 May 2012, Neidel, C‑337/10, EU:C:2012:263), the European Union system for the organisation of working time put in place by Directive 2003/88 may not be interpreted restrictively. Indeed, if it were to be accepted, in that context, that the worker’s acquired entitlement to paid annual leave could be extinguished, that would amount to validating conduct by which an employer was unjustly enriched to the detriment of the very purpose of that directive, which is that there should be due regard for workers’ health.

65      It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to the second to fifth questions is that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices that prevent a worker from carrying over and, where appropriate, accumulating, until termination of his employment relationship, paid annual leave rights not exercised in respect of several consecutive reference periods because his employer refused to remunerate that leave.

And the employer now estimates the following:

For leave year 2024/25 the balance is now: 13 weeks at 23 hours per week at 8% 23.92 hours accumulated this year. Hours Total outstanding as of June 30th 2024 23.92 + 79.18 103 hours.

The right to accrued leave continues until cessation of employment.”

In light of the above CJEU interpretation of the Directive I must conclude that the Complainant has a right to the accrued annual leave from commencement of employment in August 2022 until the cessation of employment in April 2024 and in these circumstances, she was entitled to receive payment in lieu of the leave at the time of termination of employment.  I calculate her annual leave entitlement to be 48 days equating to a monetary value of €2157.

In all the circumstances I find her complaint to be well founded, and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €2157 representing the monetary loss together with the sum of €2,000 compensation for breach of the Act.

CA-00066201-005: (Public Holidays):

The Complainant sought payment for public holidays owed from commencement to the termination of her employment and at the applicable minimum wage rate.

I have dealt with the claim for the minimum wage at CA-0006201-001 above and in circumstances where the Complainant had not complied with the requirements of the Act, I did not have jurisdiction to address her claim in that regard.  Therefore I am considering this claim based on the rate of pay operating at the time of her employment.

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 21 of the Act provides:

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—

(a) a paid day off on that day,

(b) a paid day off within a month of that day,

(c) an additional day of annual leave,

(d) an additional day's pay:

This complaint was received on 23 September 2024.  In accordance with Section 41 of the Act, the cognisable time period is 23 March 2024 to 31 May 2024 (being the last day of her employment)

In that period there were 3 public holidays, 18/03/2024, 01/04/2024, 06/05/2024 and 03/06/2024. 

In all the circumstances I find her complaint to be well founded.

CA-0066201-008: (Daily Rest Periods)

The Complainant alleged that she did not receive her entitlement to daily rest periods throughout her employment and she outlined the detail of mid-week and weekend shifts which she worked.

The Respondent position was that it had no records to demonstrate what had occurred and that, in any event the Complainant had agreed her terms at the outset of the employment relationship with Ms. A.

Section 11 of the Act provides that “An employee shall be entitled to a rest period of not less than 11 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours during which he or she works for his or her employer.”

Section 13 of the Act states:

13.—(1) In this section “daily rest period” means a rest period referred to in section 11.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), an employee shall, in each period of 7 days, be granted a rest period of at least 24 consecutive hours; subject to subsections (4) and (6), the time at which that rest period commences shall be such that that period is immediately preceded by a daily rest period.

(3) An employer may, in lieu of granting to an employee in any period of 7 days the first-mentioned rest period in subsection (2), grant to him or her, in the next following period of 7 days, 2 rest periods each of which shall be a period of at least 24 consecutive hours and, subject to subsections (4) and (6)—

(a) if the rest periods so granted are consecutive, the time at which the first of those periods commences shall be such that that period is immediately preceded by a daily rest period, and

(b) if the rest periods so granted are not consecutive, the time at which each of those periods commences shall be such that each of them is immediately preceded by a daily rest period.

(4) If considerations of a technical nature or related to the conditions under which the work concerned is organised or otherwise of an objective nature would justify the making of such a decision, an employer may decide that the time at which a rest period granted by him or her under subsection (2) or (3) shall commence shall be such that the rest period is not immediately preceded by a daily rest period.

(5) Save as may be otherwise provided in the employee’s contract of employment—

(a) the rest period granted to an employee under subsection (2), or

(b) one of the rest periods granted to an employee under subsection (3),shall be a Sunday or, if the rest period is of more than 24 hours duration, shall include a Sunday.

(6) The requirement in subsection (2) or paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3) as to the time at which a rest period under this section shall commence shall not apply in any case where, by reason of a provision of this Act or an instrument or agreement under, or referred to in, this Act, the employee concerned is not entitled to a daily rest period in the circumstances concerned.

Based on the above it is clear that the Complainant had an entitlement to 11 hours rest in every 24-hour period.   I must now evaluate the shifts worked by the Complainant against that entitlement

Shift 1 (Mid-week Night Shift)

The Complainant set out that when working a mid-week night shift she worked a total of 13 hours and 15 minutes.  This shift commenced at 8 pm and finished at 9.15 am the following day.  Therefore, on day 1 she worked a total of 4 hrs and on day 2 she worked a total of 9 hrs and 15 mins.  The Complainant outlined that she often worked that 13hour 15 min shift and returned to a further 13 hr 15 min shift.  Such a roster pattern would signify a breach of the rest period entitlement in all consecutive days rostered. 

Shift 2 (Weekend Night Shift)

The Complainant set out that when working a weekend or public holiday night shift she worked a total of 15 hours and 15 minutes.  This shift commenced at 6 pm and finished at 9.15 am the following day.  Therefore, on day 1 she worked a total of 6 hrs and on day 2 she worked a total of 9 hrs and 15 mins.  The Complainant outlined that she often worked that 15hour 15 min shift and returned to a further 15 hr 15 min shift.  Such a roster pattern would signify a breach of the rest period entitlement in all consecutive days rostered.

Shift 3 (Day shift)

The Complainant set out that when working a day shift, she worked from 5.30 pm to 8 pm. It is evident that there was no breach of the Act in relation to the day shift.

It is clear from the shift patterns described by the Complainant that the night roster shift pattern does not comply with the requirements of the Act for an 11-hour rest period.  The Act places the obligation on the employer to retain records of times worked.  The Respondent confirmed it did not have those records.  The act also makes clear that in circumstances where the Respondent does not retain the records the burden of proof lies with the Respondent to demonstrate compliance.   The Respondent di not provide any evidence to demonstrate compliance or to refute the details submitted by the Complainant.

In all the circumstances I find this complaint to be well founded.

CA-0066201-009: (Breaks)

The Complainant alleged that she did not receive her entitlement to breaks during her working day and she outlined that during night shifts she worked a total of 13hrs and 15 mins (mid week) and 15 hrs and 15 mins (weekend) without receiving any break.  She submitted that this was due to the fact that the children could not be left unsupervised at any time and that there were not sufficient staff rostered on at the same time to allow for breaks.  She further submitted that the Respondent controlled the hours of work and the number of staff rostered.

The Respondent position was that it had no records to demonstrate what had occurred and that, in any event the Complainant had agreed her terms at the outset of the employment relationship with Ms. A.

It was clarified, in the course of the hearing that the primary school children went to bed a 8 pm, while post-primary children could remain up until midnight.  In these circumstances it is obvious that staff could have made arrangements to take a break after 8 pm.  The taking of these breaks was very much in the control of the staff rostered on duty and I do not accept that they never received such a break.

In the circumstances I find this complaint to be not well founded.

CA-00066201-010: (Working above Maximum Hours)

The Complainant alleged that she was required to work more than the maximum permitted number of hours and she submitted that between August 2022 and June 2024 she worked a total of 2769 hours during school term.  She further submitted typically she worked between 24-32 hours a week between the hours of midnight and 7 am.

The Respondent position was that it had no records to demonstrate what had occurred and that, in any event the Complainant had agreed her terms at the outset of the employment relationship with Ms. A.

Section 15 of the Act states:

“15-(1) An employer shall 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”) …”

By her own evidence the Complainant was working no more than 32 hours per week and in these circumstances, I find this complaint to be not well founded.

CA-00066201-011: (Excessive Night Hours)

The Complainant alleged that she was required to work excessive night hours.  She submitted that her night shifts commenced at 6pm on weekends and 8 pm on weekdays and finished at 9.15 am.  This equated to a total of 13hrs 15 mins and 15 hrs 15 mins respectively.  She further submitted that typically she worked between 24-32 hours a week between the hours of midnight and 7 am.

The Respondent position was that it had no records to demonstrate what had occurred and that, in any event the Complainant had agreed her terms at the outset of the employment relationship with Ms. A.

Section 16 of the Act states that ““night time” means the period between midnight and 7 am on the following day”

Section 16(2) provides that “an employer shall not permit a night worker, in each period of 24 hours, to work –

(a)   In a case where the work done by the worker in that period includes night work and the worker is a special category night worker, more than 8 hours,

(b)   In any other case, more than an average of 8 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a “reference period”)….”

Based on the shift durations provided by the Complainant it is clear that when working the night shift the Complainant worked a total of 7 hours between the hours of mid night and 7 am.  Therefore, no breach of the legislation occurred.  In these circumstances I find this complaint to be not well founded.

CA-00066201-014: (Statement of Terms of Employment)

Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act states:

“3.- (1) An employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment…”

The Complainant alleged that she did not receive a statement in writing of her terms and conditions of employment when she commenced employment on 28 August 2022.

The Respondent position was that it had no records to demonstrate what had occurred and that, in any event the Complainant had agreed her terms at the outset of the employment relationship with Ms. A.

The Respondent was obligated under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act to provide the Complainant with a written statement of her terms and conditions within 2 months of her start date, therefore she should have received such a statement by 28 October 2023, and she alleged she did not receive that statement.  The Respondent did not provide any evidence to the contrary.

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act states that “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.”

In accordance with the above provisions the Complainant was required to submit her complaint within 6 months of the date of the breach.  Consequently, the latest date on which the Complainant could have submitted her complaint was 28 April 2024.  In circumstances where the Complainant actually submitted her complaint on 23 September 2024, I find that this complaint is out of time and I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

CA-00066201-015: (Notification of Changes to Terms of Employment)

The Complainant alleged that she was not notified in writing of changes to her terms of employment.  She submitted that in September 2023 the start time of her Sunday night shift changed from 7 pm to 6 pm.

The Respondent position was that it had no records to demonstrate what had occurred and that, in any event the Complainant had agreed her terms at the outset of the employment relationship with Ms. A.

The Terms of Employment (Information) Act places an obligation on the employer to notify the employee of changes to their core terms of employment and the Complainant alleged that she did not receive the relevant notice.  She did not, however, provide an exact date in September 2023 when this change occurred.  For the purpose of demonstration, I have assumed 30 September 2023 as the date of the change.

As outlined under CA00066201-015 above, a complaint must be submitted within 6 months of the date of contravention to which the complaint relates.  Allowing for a contravention date of 30 September 2023, the latest date on which the Complainant could have submitted her complaint was 30 March 2024.  In circumstances where the Complainant actually submitted her complaint on 23 September 2024, I find that this complaint is out of time and I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

CA-00066201-001: (Minimum Wage)

I found that the Complainant had not received or sought a statement of her hourly rate when she referred this complaint and I therefore do not have jurisdiction in the matter. In these circumstances it is my decision that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00066201-002: (Sunday Pay)

I found that the Complainant did not receive Sunday premium, and that her complaint was well founded, and I decide accordingly.

Based on a premium of 33%, an hourly rate of €6.42 and a Sunday shift of 15 hrs and 15 mins I calculate the Complainants loss to be €835 for the cognisable period of this complaint.  I therefore direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the amount of €835 representing the monetary loss associated with her unpaid Sunday Premium together with the sum of €2,000 compensation for breach of the Act.

 CA-00066201-004: (Holiday Pay)

I found that this complaint is well founded, and I decide accordingly.   I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €2157 representing the monetary loss associated with her annual leave together with the sum of €2,000 compensation for breach of the Act.

CA-00066201-005: (Public Holidays):

I found this complaint to be well founded, and I decide accordingly.  I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €360 representing the monetary loss associated with her public holiday entitlement within the cognisable period of this complaint together with the sum of €2,000 compensation for breaches of the Act.

CA-0066201-008: (Daily Rest Periods)

I found this complaint to be well founded and I decide accordingly.  I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €2000 compensation for breaches of the Act..

CA-0066201-009: (Breaks)

I found this complaint to be not well founded and I decide accordingly.

CA-00066201-010: (Working above Maximum Hours)

I found this complaint to be not well founded and I decide accordingly.

CA-00066201-011: (Excessive Night Hours)

I found this complaint to be not well founded and I decide accordingly.

CA00066201-014: (Statement of Terms of Employment)

I found that this complaint was out of time.  In these circumstances I decide that this complaint is not well founded.

CA00066201-015: (Notification of Changes to Terms of Employment)

I found that this complaint was out of time.  In these circumstances I decide that this complaint is not well founded.

Minimum wage, Sunday premium, holiday pay, public holidays, rest periods, excessive night hours, terms of employment