ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055552
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Killian Casey | Juggle Group Ltd |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Mr Peter Dunlea of Peninsula Business Services |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute 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-00067672-001 | 26/11/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00067672-002 | 26/11/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00067672-003 | 26/11/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearings: 11th March 2025 and 9th May 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses present. The legal perils of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
The issue of anonymisation in the published finding of the WRC was considered by the Parties but not deemed necessary.
Background:
The issues in contention concerned a Facility & Operations Manager and a Facilities Company. It was alleged that the Respondent Company was in numerous breaches of the Organization of Working Time Act,1997 specifically in regard to daily hours of work, daily rest breaks and weekly breaks. The employment began on the 29th January 2024 and ended on the 25th November 2024. The Complainant was dismissed. The rate of pay was stated, by the Complainant, to have been an annual salary of €70k for an alleged 55-hour week.
|
Opening Procedural issue
There were two attempted Hearings on this case. At the first Hearing, on the 11th March 2025, the Respondent sought a postponement due to a sudden and unexpected illness. This Postponement was granted at the Hearing by the Adjudication Officer. Medical Certificates were to be produced.
At the second Hearing on the 9th May 2025 the Representative for the Respondent apologised to the Hearing that he had no recent instructions as the Respondent had been convicted of a serious charge and was now in prison.
In these circumstances he was not able to proceed, in the physical absence of the Respondent and a lack of Legal instructions in a defence of the Respondent position.
The Complainant requested that the case be decided, in default, in his favour.
The Complainant pointed out that the Respondent had clearly been on proper notice and was able to engage a Representative on both occasions.
No application for a deferment/postponement had been made or for a Remote Video Attendance by the Respondent from the Prison.
Adjudication Decision
The Adjudication Officer considered postponing the Case “sine die” until such time as the Respondent was released from prison or made arrangements for a Video Attendance.
However, on consideration of the fact that the Complaint had first been lodged on the 26th November 2024, had been listed for Hearing on the 11th March 2025 and deferred to the 9th May 2025. It was the Adjudication Officer’s view that sufficient time had been allowed for a Respondent defence to be produced, particularly as they were professionally Represented on both occasions.
He decided to let the case proceed.
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00067672-001 (Daily Rest), CA- CA-00067672-002 (Work Breaks) & CA-00067672-003 (Weekly Rest) The Complainant was under Sworn Oath. He outlined his evidence in support of the three complaints. There was no cross examination or rebuttal evidence presented. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As outlined above the Respondent did not attend in person on either date. His Representative, who attended, was unable to proceed as he had no instructions. A generic Written Respondent statement, drafted by the Representative, was sent to the WRC before the Hearing but lacked specific details. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
3:1 Legal position. The complaints are clearly covered by the Organisation of Working Time Act,1997. The Complainant gave detailed evidence under Sworn Oath. In a Working Time, case the onus in on the former or current Employer to produce working time records to establish a sustainable defence. This was not possible in this case. Accordingly, the Adjudication decision has to be, by default, in favour of the Complainant. |
4: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
4:1 Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997
CA-00067672-001 – Hours of Work
The sum of €5,000 is awarded, in Compensation for breach of a statutory right, in favour of the Complainant.
4:2 CA-00067672-002 – Daily Rest Breaks
The sum of €5,000 is awarded, in Compensation for breach of a statutory right, in favour of the Complainant.
4:3 CA-00067672-003 – Weekly Hours of Work
The sum of €5,000 is awarded, in Compensation for breach of a statutory right, in favour of the Complainant.
4:4
The total Compensation equals € 15,000 – (approximately 21% of an Annual Salary of €70,000)
Dated: 24-09-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Organisation of Working Time - Section 27 |