ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057262
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Leon Grace | Newpark Hotel Limited |
Representatives | Self-represented | Peter Dunlea, Peninsula Business Services |
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-00069673-001 | 02/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint. The complainant attended the hearing and was supported by his mother, Ms Carol Grace. The respondent was represented by Mr Peter Dunlea, Peninsula Business Services.
Mr Dunlea in his written submission accepted that the respondent had breached Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, as the facts were not in dispute and the complaint conceded, there was no requirement to take evidence under oath or affirmation.
Background:
The complainant, Mr. Grace, was employed as a Kitchen Porter from 1st May 2024 up to 1st March 2025 when he resigned. He submitted a complaint that he was not provided with the statutory rest period between shifts on two occasions in January 2025. The respondent representative accepted this although submitted that it was a technical or minor breach with limited effects on the complainant. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant said that the respondent rostered him for two shifts within 8 hours of each other. He felt his employer was taking advantage of his age and not affording the appropriate rest period as he was a younger worker. He did not bring the issue to the attention of the respondent until after he resigned. He said he was aware of other issues raised by colleagues that were reported were still unresolved. He submitted his complaint to the WRC after he resigned on 1st March 2025. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Mr Dunlea submitted that the respondent accepted the breach and apologised to the complainant. He further submitted that the breach was a technical breach and minor in nature. He relied upon Udalous v. Southeast Vegetable Producers Limited (TE224/2012) that any compensation awarded should be just and equitable in all the circumstances. He submitted that the breach was not raised at the time so any corrective response for the complainant could not have been put in place. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The sole issue to be decided is the level of compensation in accordance with Section 27 (3) of the Act. I am satisfied that there is no requirement to order the respondent to comply. There is full acknowledgement and acceptance that the Act was breached and assurances of no repeated breach. On compensation, the Adjudication Officer provided the parties with a copy of Labour Court decision Tifco Ltd v. Smietana DWT 11124 which involved a similar breach of Section 11. The parties were given an opportunity to make submissions on this. Mr Dunlea submitted that the compensation awarded in this case was due to six breaches of Section 11, along with other breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act. Mr Grace said that he was satisfied for the Adjudicator to assess the level of compensation. Finding Although Mr Dunlea has claimed a technical/minor breach, I do not accept this as minor, particularly as the Act regulates for adequate rest periods for health and safety reasons. In mitigation, I considered the fact that the two incidents were not repeated, even though the respondent was not on notice of the complaint until after 2nd March 2025. The effects on the complainant are difficult to assess in that he did not raise the issue at the time of the breach. He then left the employment soon afterwards to take up other employment. Having considered all the factors along and Tifco Ltd v. Smietana DWT 11124, I decide that a compensation award of €2,000.00 is just and equitable. |
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 decide that the complaint is well founded. I order the respondent to award compensation of €2,000.00 to the complainant. For clarity, this is an award of compensation and is not related to earnings. |
Dated: 10th September 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Organisation of Working Time Act, rest periods |