ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057702

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Sean McCabe	North Quay Associates Limited

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Self

Ken Stafford, Consultant

Complaint(s):

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-00070269-001	25/03/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/09/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

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.

The parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.

The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.

Mr Sean McCabe attended the hearing and represented himself. The Respondent was represented by Mr Ken Stafford.

While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Mr Sean McCabe as “the Complainant” and to North Quay Associates Limited as “the Respondent.”

The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.

Background:

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 03/03/2008. He left his position on 10/03/2025. He was paid €19.74 per hour. He submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 25/03/2025. His complaint is that he did not receive his public holiday entitlements. The Respondent submits that he Complainant was paid in excess of his working hours, and this payment was more than any pay he was due for public holidays.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant gave evidence on oath. He worked for the Respondent as a Stevedore from March 2008 until March 2025. For the first 13 years of his employment, he received an additional pay for public holidays. He then transferred to a different location and the Respondent ceased paying him for public holidays. He queried this and was paid for public holidays for a seven-month period in 2021. When he queried this again, he was informed that pay for public holidays were now integrated into his salary throughout the year. The Complainant submits that he was never formally notified of this change, and he was reluctant to submit a complaint to the WRC. He is seeking payment for all the public holidays that occurred since 2021.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent’s business is Stevedoring, and it operates on a contractual basis, in several shipping lines in Dublin Port. The line in which the Complainant is based operates every day except Christmas Day. The contract transferred to the Respondent in 2017 under a TUPE arrangement. The pay system that transferred was that employees were paid every two weeks for 78 hours based on their individual hourly rate and there was no separate Public Holiday payment.

The Respondent set out how this pay structure worked. The employees work 36.75 hours per week and are paid for 39 hours. This leaves a surplus of 2.25 hours per week which equates to 177 hours per year. These hours are intended to pay for Public Holidays and there were originally 9 Public Holidays per year. These 9 days account for 94.5 hours, and this leaves a surplus of 22.5 hours. The Respondent decided not to make an issue in relation to this. When the additional Public Holiday came into force the Respondent decided to make a separate payment in addition to that outlined above.

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that when the employees transferred under TUPE this matter was never raised as an issue and the Respondent paid them exactly the same as the Transferor. It is the Respondent’s position that the transferred employees were represented by their trade union, Unite, at that time. The transfer agreement dealt with all the terms and conditions and was accepted at that time.

The Respondent believes that the Complainant has misunderstood the Public Holiday payment system. The Respondent inherited the payment system.

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the system in place is more advantageous to the Complainant and, all the other employees, rather than apply the usual methodology. The Respondent believes that it would be in breach of the transfer agreement to seek to change the system.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant submitted a claim for unpaid public holiday entitlements. The complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 25 March 2025.

In accordance with Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, the cognisable period for this complaint runs from 25 September 2024 to 25 March 2025.

During this six-month period, six public holidays occurred:

· 28 October 2024

· 25 December 2024

· 26 December 2024

· 01 January 2025

· 03 February 2025

· 17 March 2025

It is accepted by both parties that the Complainant received payment for the new public holiday on 3 February 2025, as evidenced by his payslip dated 19 February 2025.

The Complainant maintains that no other public holiday payments were made.

Respondent’s Position:

The Respondent submitted that an agreement arising from a TUPE transfer and arbitration process in August 2021 governs employee entitlements. However, the Respondent failed to provide the full agreement, producing only a cover page. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that the payment system incorporated entitlements for public holidays. No payslips, other than for 03 February 2025, showed any reference to public holiday payments.

Complainant’s Position:

The Complainant provided a copy of his contract of employment signed by a Director of the Respondent on 11 March 2008. The clause on “Bank Holidays” provides that:

· If rostered to work on a bank holiday, the employee is paid at double time.

· If rostered off, the employee is entitled to an extra day’s pay (one-fifth of a basic week’s salary).

· If rostered off but works, the employee is paid double time for hours worked.

This clause sets out a clear contractual entitlement to public holiday pay in line with Section 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

Findings:

The cognisable period for this complaint is 25 September 2024 – 25 March 2025. Within this period, six public holidays arose. The Complainant received payment only for 3 February 2025.

The Respondent did not provide evidence to establish that its payment system subsumed public holiday entitlements. The Complainant’s 2008 contract confirms an unambiguous entitlement to public holiday pay.

Accordingly, I find that the complaint is well-founded. I find that the Complainant is entitled to payment for five public holidays during the cognisable period:

· 28 October 2024

· 25 December 2024

· 26 December 2024

· 01 January 2025

· 17 March 2025.

The payslip for 03 February 2025 shows a public holiday payment of €140.91. I adopt this figure as the basis for calculating compensation for each outstanding public holiday.

The Respondent is directed to pay the Complainant a total of 5 × €140.91 = €704.55 (gross) within 42 days of the date of this decision.

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 have decided that this complaint is well-founded and I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant for 5 Public Holidays based on a previous public holiday payment of €140.91 and the Respondent is directed to pay the Complainant a total of €704.55 (gross).

Dated: 30th September 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Key Words:

Public holidays. TUPE agreement.