Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Joseph  Martin

Praxis Care Ltd.

Representatives

Mr. Charles Murphy

Mr. Barry O’Mahony, BL instructed by Mr. Ryan McAllister ARAG LPL

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-00070661-001

08/04/2025

The Complainant is a relief worker with the Respondent, having commenced in his employment on 21 October 2020.  He alleged that it came to his attention in July 2023 that he was not being paid for his public holiday entitlement.  He further alleged that despite a protracted grievance procedure no payment had been made to him despite the company admitting liability.

The Respondent raised the preliminary matter of the cognisable period for this complaint and submitted that 6 public holidays fell within that cognisable period.  It was the Respondent position that the Complainant had been paid for those dates in accordance with the provisions of the act.

The Complainant is a relief worker with the Respondent, having commenced in his employment on 21 October 2020.  He alleged that it came to his attention in July 2023 that he was not being paid for his public holiday entitlement.  He further alleged that despite a protracted grievance procedure no payment had been made to him despite the company admitting liability.

The Respondent raised the preliminary matter of the cognisable period for this complaint and submitted that 6 public holidays fell within that cognisable period.  It was the Respondent position that the Complainant had been paid for those dates in accordance with the provisions of the act.

In his complaint form the Complainant outlined that in July 2023 he noted that Ihe was not being paid for bank holidays. In August of 2023 he brought this to the notice of Mr. Jennings in H.R.  he submitted that Mr. Jennings dismissed his claim stating that the Complainant was on "A nil hour contract".  Unsatisfied with this response the Complainant lodged a grievance under the company's grievance policy. The company requested that he attend a panel meeting, with Mr. Jennings as chair, to adjudicate his claim. The Complainant stated that he was willing to adhere to company policy but as Mr. Jennings had already dismissed his claim he requested that another chair be appointed. The matter was then passed to Ms. Caldwell of H.R.

The Complainant outlined that as he was not getting any correspondence from the company, he then instructed legal counsel to take action. The Complainant then received correspondence from Ms. Caldwell, on 21 August 2024, stating that the matter was sorted and indicating the amount owed. The Complainant outlined that knowing that he was owed in holiday pay he requested a review of all payments and he advised that this would be the subject of a separate complaint to the WRC. The Complainant stated that as part of the review errors were discovered but that the Respondent figures did not agree with his records.  He stated that he offered his information but was refused by the company. He stated that he requested an interim payment equivalent to the amount recognized by the company as owed but the company refused to do so. The company indicated that he would have to await the outcome of a comprehensive audit despite being advised by the company that this was something that had already happened.

The Complainant outlined that this matter had being ongoing since 2023 and that at the date of submission of his complaint no payment had been made to him.

Complainant Submission

In his submission the Complainant stated that the Respondent:

·       Failed to adhere to its own grievance policy.

·       Having recognised and calculated their liability, they have procrastinated in the payment of same.

·       Tried to diminish their liability by issuing a general directive (and payment) declaring a limited lookback for Bank Holiday payment.

·       Having recognised a short payment in his holiday pay entitlement and an error in their initial calculations, they refused to conduct a verifiable audit.

·       Have yet to fulfil their obligation to pay what can only be seen as legitimate wages.

·       Forced him to obtain, costly, legal assistance to get them o acknowledge his correspondence

·       Have, through their inability to address these matters, caused him anxiety and mental stress.

·       Having received legal advice stating that Praxis had a legal, financial liability paid only one person.

·       Sought to limit accessibility to that legal advice to deter claims going through solicitors and ultimately the WRC.

·       Sought, through advice on how to withhold payment and even retrieve payments made.

The Complainant submitted that on 27 October 2023, he submitted a grievance to Mr. Jennings in Praxis HR Department and that after numerous e-mails an informal meeting was arranged. In the meantime, Mr. Jennings sent him an e-mail stating that as he was on a ZERO HOUR contract, he was not eligible for payment. The Complainant advised that he was not satisfied with the outcome of the informal meeting so requested the issue be formally progressed through the company’s grievance policy.

He submitted that again it took numerous mails to secure a date for the formal meeting and that when it was eventually arranged it was to be chaired by Mr. Jennings, who not only rejected his claim in the informal meeting but had stated in writing that he was not eligible for payment. He submitted that in the interest of fairness, he requested his removal as chair. Mr Jennings cancelled the formal meeting stating he would get back to the Complainant, however, he did not revert nor had the formal meeting been rescheduled.

The Complainant submitted that as time passed and emails were exchanged the Respondent admitted liability and offered a cash settlement. He submitted that upon examination of his records he discovered short payments in holiday pay and brought this to the attention of the Respondent who again admitted that he was owed this money as well. The Complainant submitted that despite acknowledgement of their liability the Respondent had paid nothing. He submitted that he requested a verifiable check be made on payments and requested an interim payment based on their figures but the Respondent refused this request. He stated that it then became necessary to bring his case to the WRC because of the Respondent’s procrastination and unwillingness to move the issue forward. The Complainant provided copies of emails and documents relevant to his interactions with the Respondent in relation to the above matters.

The Complainant submitted that on 18 September 2024, Ms Caldwell admitted that he was owed 34 Bank Holiday payments and on 17 October 2024 Ms. O’Dowd admitted an underpayment for 12 disturbance hours and 34 Bank Holidays and put a figure on the due payment. On 18 October 2024 the Complainant e-mailed Ms Caldwell stating that he was owed 40 hours holiday pay and this was acknowledged and validated on the same day by Ms.O’Dowd .  The Complainant submitted that this mail showed that a full lookback, as indicated on the mail of 17 October, had not been comprehensive.

The Complainant submitted that on 17 November 2024 he acknowledged a phone call received from N.Irwin on 14 November 2024, and the request for a little time to review documents. He submitted that his efforts to get an update was addressed by e-mail on 26 November 2024 from N. Irwin indicating that the matter was being handed over to another official and that no payment would be made until investigation was completed. He further submitted that as of the date of finalising his submission he had not received the results of the investigation.

The Complainant wrote to the Respondent on 18 December 2024 and received a reply on the same day stating that Ms. Meagan would be supporting this ongoing matter. He wrote again on 10 January 2025 advising that he would take the matter to the courts unless resolved shortly and offered to assist in the enquiry, however, he got no response to his offer to help. On 13 January 2025 Ms. Irwin informed him that the matter was still under investigation. On 21 January 2025 he again emailed the Respondent and outlined his dismay at the lack of progress and offered, again, to assist.  On 23he January 2025 he was invited to a formal grievance meeting by Ms. Meagan despite the fact that the Respondent already had admitted liability. He submitted that on 27 January 2025 he replied, stating this fact and proving their allegations to be false. On the same day he replied to N.Irwin’s mail wherein he outlined how the investigation could be expedited, offered his records for comparison, and suggested a payment of recognised liabilities be paid ex gratia to him. On 31 January 2025 Ms. Meegan postponed the suggested formal grievance meeting stating she would get back to him, however as at the date of submission he had not gotten back to him.

The Complainant submitted that on 31 January 2025 N Irwin stated that the matter was still under investigation and should be concluded in a matter of weeks. She also stated that no payment would be made to him until the investigation was concluded. On 31 March 2025 the Complainant informed N Irwin that he had made a submission to the WRC.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent tried to diminish their liability by issuing a general directive (and payment), declaring a limited lookback for Bank Holiday payment. He submitted that on 20 May 2025 a memo was released to staff indicating that relief staff were eligible for bank holidays payments under certain conditions and that back payment would be made from 1 November 2024 to 30 April 2025. The Complainant advised that the payment was made, however he returned it having recognised

(a) a short payment in his holiday pay entitlement and

(b) an error in their initial calculations

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent refused to conduct a verifiable audit. The Complainant further submitted that on 17 October 2024 Ms. O'Dowd stated that she had cross checked expenses against monies paid and discovered a short payment for 12 hours; calculations were included in the mail. On 18 October 2024 the Complainant indicated that he was short paid for 40 holiday hours. On the same day Ms. O’Dowd admitted a short payment of those 40 hours. On the 23 October 2024 the Complainant requested a verifiable audit be performed on his payments and on 31 October 2024 Ms. Caldwell replied that a comprehensive and verified check had been done. The Complainant outlined that she gave no indication of how the verification had been signed off. The Complainant submitted that in any event even with this “comprehensive verified check” no monies were paid to him.

The Complainant submitted that on 27 January 2025 he suggested that the Respondent make a payment, to him, based on their figures and on 31 January 2025 N. Irwin stated “the organisation will rectify any errors and make accurate payments accordingly however an ex-gratia payment of goodwill will not be considered in resolution to this matter”. He submitted that as a result he was forced to obtain, costly, legal assistance to force them into acknowledging his correspondence. In addition, he submitted that the Respondent had, through their inability to address these matters, caused him anxiety and mental stress and he had advised them accordingly in March 2024 and in July and August 2024.

The Complainant submitted that despite receiving legal correspondence regarding their legal and financial liability the Respondent did not make payments to him but instead sought to limit their liability.  The Complainant drew attention to an internal e-mail from J. Jennings to N. Irwin on 22 January 2025 where J. Jennings advised that the solicitor had advised “To offer them the right to attend a formal meeting”, that “He does not want us to share the legal advice as his view is it will push the staff to get their own and it should be managed between us and them” and that “It will not be a good look to recoup the money after telling the staff they were due this, but is in the terms of the employer/employee relationship and not about any risk in the WRC.”.  The Complainant submitted that this advice suggests that a formal meeting is or should be an approach taken by the Respondent and was actioned by the Respondent by the invitation on 23January 2025, inviting him to a formal meeting. The Complainant appended relevant emails and documents to support the above.

Redress

The Complainant sought the following by way of redress:

·       A formal, written apology.

·       Payment in full of all monies owed to me.

·       Interest payment on the above payment in line with that paid to the Revenue Commissioners for late payments.

·       Payment of the fee paid to my solicitor.

·       An ex-gratia payment for the delays, anxiety, mental anguish and time spent on formulating my numerous correspondence with Praxis.

In conclusion the Complainant submitted that it seemed disingenuous,

that a company designated as a charity, despite getting legal advice “indicating that the Bank holiday money was an entitlement for staff, had not only not fulfilled their legal and moral obligation but sought to recoup that element which had been paid.

Preliminary issue:

Timeline:

At hearing Mr Murphy stated on behalf of the Complainant that the Respondent was wrong in their assessment of the cognisable period.  He outlined that the original grievance had in fact been settled and that the Respondent had provided a calculation of the amounts outstanding and therefore had admitted liability for those outstanding payments.  He stated that it was only on 31 January 2025 that the Respondent refused to make an interim payment while corrections in relation to those calculations were being re-checked, despite the fact that two months prior, they had assured that payment would be made and that it would just take a few weeks to sort out the payment.  In those circumstances the Complainant believed that the breach occurred in relation to the non-payment on 31 January 2025 and that they had submitted their complaint within time.  In response to a question from the Adjudication Officer, both Mr Murphy and the Complainant confirmed that they were not seeking an extension of the timeline. 

Other complaints:

Mr Murphy on behalf of the Complainant confirmed that the chronology of events described in the Complainant’s submission was provided to the WRC by way of background to the complaint and were not intended to be separate complaints.  The Complainant accepted that the only complaint before the WRC was the complaint in relation to the non-payment of public holidays under the Organisation of Working Time. 

The Substantive Case:

On behalf of the complainant, Mr Murphy outlined that the Complainant was due to be paid for his public holidays in accordance with section 21 (4) of the 1997 Working Time Act and that the Act clearly set down that an employer was obliged to pay in such circumstances, unless they were claiming inability to pay, which was not the case in the instant case.  He stated that the Complainant was due to be paid in circumstances where he worked 40 hours in a previous period.  He stated that at the end of 2024 the Respondent accepted liability for owing the Complainant 34 public holidays.

Mr Murphy stated that the Respondent could not dictate when the Statutory Instrument is applied, that they should have been aware of their liability, that they had the advice of an accountant throughout the time and that they did not have a right to simply disregard the law and that they equally could not rely on ignorance of the law.  Mr Murphy confirmed that the Complainant did receive a payment which he returned because he was not satisfied with the calculations.

In relation to the Respondent position that the Complainant had recently been paid for public holidays for the period from September 2024 to April 2025, the Complainant advised that he had no reason to doubt the veracity of the Respondent position, however, he was not in a position to verify the payment as he was paid monthly and had not yet had sight of his payslip.  He indicated that he would anticipate receiving that payslip in or around 27 November 2025 and he confirmed to the Adjudication Officer that he would provide a copy of that payslip to the WRC once received.

Post Hearing Submission:

The Complainant provided a post hearing submission on 2 December 2025 and appended a copy of his pay slip dated 27 November 2025, together with a copy of bank statements for the relevant period.  The bank statements showed a payment of €71.70 paid into the Complainants account on 14 November 2025 and a payment of €407.73 paid into the Complainants account on 17 November 2025.

In his submission the Complainant drew attention to the Respondent submission which stated “The Respondent has again, in advance of the hearing, made a payment to the Complainant covering the Public Holidays which fell due in the period commencing from 28 October 2024 to 20 May 2025, covering the entire reckonable period.”  He submitted that the foregoing statement was re-enforced at the hearing on the morning of 17 November.  He drew attention to the fact that the remittance of €407.73 took place on 14 November 2025 and that it was not posted to his account until 17 November 2025 and in such circumstances could not have been made at the time of making the submission and that the payment was made merely to give credence to the Respondent’s statement that a payment was made.

The Respondent submitted the following Preliminary Issues:

·       Time Limits

·       Additional Complaints

Time Limits

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on or around 21 October 2020 and lodged his complaint with the WRC on 8 April 2025. The Respondent noted that the Complainant set out a detailed narrative in his complaint form and submission in which he alleged that he raised the issue he complains of in August 2023 and submitted that he did not issue these proceedings until 8 April 2025. 

The Respondent drew attention to Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 which states as follows: “6) 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”. The Respondent submitted that the reckonable period in relation to the complaints therefore are as set out above and any alleged conservation outside that time period is out of time.

The Respondent noted that Section 41(8) of Workplace Relations Act 2015 permits the extension of time where reasonable cause is shown on the part of the Employee and further noted that in the current circumstances, the complainant had made no application for an extension of time. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant would not be entitled to an extension of time even if such an application were made.

Without prejudice to the foregoing, and in anticipation of an argument that there as some form of miscalculation, the Respondent submitted that it would rely on the case of Galway & Roscommon ETB v. Josephine Kenny (UDD1624), in which the Labour court stated as follows: “The Court cannot accept that a miscalculation of the due date amounts to “exceptional circumstances” as defined by Section 44(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. The miscalculation of the deadline date is akin to a misinterpretation of the statutory provisions. The Court is satisfied that the legal principle ignorantia juris non excusat (“ignorance of the law excuses not”) applies in this case and therefore the miscalculation cannot be accepted as excusing a failure to comply with a statutory time limit. While ignorance on the part of an employee of his or her statutory rights may explain a delay in submitting his or her appeal under the Act it cannot excuse a delay.”

The Respondent further submitted that in Minister for Finance v CPSU and Ors[2007] 18 ELR 36 the High Court held that ignorance of one’s legal rights, as opposed to the facts giving rise to those rights, cannot be accepted as an excuse for not observing a statutory time limit.

The Respondent noted that the Complainant has made no application for an extension of time and submitted that, a lack of awareness of the applicable time limits cannot be considered ‘reasonable cause’. The Respondent submitted that were the Complainant to make an application at this point based on a lack of knowledge, this would not constitute a reasonable cause.  The Respondent cited that in Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT 38/2003, the labour court stated as follows: ‘It is the Court's view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’ s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time… Where reasonable cause is shown the Court must still consider if it is appropriate in the circumstances to exercise its discretion in favour of granting an extension of time. Here the Court should consider if the respondent has suffered prejudice by the delay and should also consider if the claimant has a good arguable case.’

The Respondent submitted that where the Complainant had made no application for an extension of time in his submission, or otherwise, it was most likely that the Complainant was not aware of the applicable time limits, and as such, he could not now validly argue that he had reasonable cause to extend the time in the current circumstances. The Respondent further submitted that there was no reasonable cause available to the Complainant which would permit an extension to the applicable time limits in all the circumstances, particularly given that no application had been made.

The Respondent suggested that Complainant might argue that he delayed in commencing WRC proceedings as he had raised a grievance. The Respondent submitted that the Labour Court had consistently confirmed that the utilising of the internal grievance procedure does not constitute ‘reasonable cause’ for the purposes of an extension of time.   The Respondent cited the case of SSE Renewables (Ireland) Ltd v Tymon UDD 1956, where the following argument was made on behalf of the Appellant regarding lime limits: “Mr Dunne stated that the Complainant does not rely upon ignorance of the applicable time limit as he accepts that he had the benefit of legal advice from his Solicitor, that he had a period of six months from the date of dismissal within which to lodge his claim. He said that the Complainant relies upon the fact that he had engaged in good faith with the Respondent in respect of the outstanding Invoices during the six-month time limit and subsequent to the six-months in the hope and expectation that the matter could be resolved without the necessity to resort to a legal remedy. He said that the Complainant was assured and given to believe that the Respondent would resolve his issues promptly. Mr Dunne submitted that, by reason of the conduct of the Respondent, the Complainant was prevented from lodging his complaint in time and that these facts met the test in Cementation. Furthermore, he contended that the Respondent will suffer no prejudice if an extension of time is granted.”

The Respondent noted that in refusing to grant the extension the Labour Court held as follows: “The crux of the Complainant’ s case appears to surround the fact that he was seeking to have outstanding Invoices paid and, due to his frustration when the Respondent refused to pay them, he lodged a claim of alleged constructive dismissal while he was processing his grievances over the outstanding payments. That claim was not presented in time. Having examined the matter the Courtis not satisfied that a nexus has been established between both these issues, and, in any event, the Court does not accept that the processing of an internal grievance can be considered as a cogent reason which prevented the lodging of a complaint under the Acts in time. The Court is of the view that the Complainant cannot circumvent the time limits set out in the Acts by seeking to rely on an 4 internal procedure that did not prevent him from bringing his complaint within the statutory time limit.”

The Respondent noted that the Court addressed this issue again in Brothers of Charity Services Galway v Kieran O’Toole [EDA177] where it held: - “The Court cannot accept that deploying the Respondent’s internal procedures operated to prevent the Complainant from initiating the within complaints within the statutory time limit provided under the Acts.”

The Respondent further noted that similarly, in Business Mobile Security Ltd t/a Senaca Limited v John McEvoyEDA 1621, the Court held that the claim was statute-barred where: - “There was a delay in processing the grievance which lasted for more than six months. In the meantime, the Complainant was out of work on sick leave. Again, he decided to allow that procedure take its course while time was running under the Act. When the matter was eventually brought to a conclusion under the grievance procedure the time limit for bringing a complaint under the Act had expired……The Court finds that in the particular circumstances of this case the Complainant made a choice and must take the consequences of that choice. He chose not to pursue a complaint under the Act, allowed time to pass and found himself statute barred when his chosen procedure did not resolve the matter to his satisfaction.”

“It is accepted that the Complainant was advised by his Solicitor in writing on 12 April 2017 and 27 July 2017 that the time limit for presenting the complaint was six months. In such circumstances, the Court cannot accept that there were reasonable grounds for the delay in doing so. Therefore, the Court must find that the within claim was out of time when it was presented to the Workplace Relations Commission on 13 February 2018.”

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant engaged solicitors June 2024 and that a solicitor’s letter was sent to the Respondent on 11 June 2024, in which a threat to commence WRC proceeding was made. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant clearly had been advised regarding the applicable time limits in the matter and that therefore the reckonable period for the purposes of this matter is from 9 October 2024 to 8 April 2025.

Additional Complaints

The Respondent submitted that there was only one matter before the WRC and clarified that the only complaint before the WRC was a claim by the Complainant that he did not receive his public holiday entitlement. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant could not seek to ventilate any matters outside the scope of that complaint, and that the WRC had no jurisdiction to hear any matters outside the scope of that complaint.

The Respondent further submitted that in so far as the Complainant sought to address matters relating to a grievance, and/or in respect of other staff, it was the Respondents firm position that this would be ultra vires the WRC in the current circumstances.

The Substantive Issue

The Respondent submitted that within the reckonable period public holidays fell on the following dates:

·       28th October 2024

·       25th December 2024

·       26th December 2024

·       1 January 2025

·       3 February 2025

·       17 March 2025

The Respondent acknowledged that there was an error in relation to the provision of public holiday entitlements for staff on relief only contracts and expressed its regret at this error. The Respondent submitted that in or around May 2025 it remedied this error, and made a payment to all affected staff regarding their outstanding public holiday entitlement during the previous six months and advised that this payment was paid to the Complainant, and communicated to him by email dated 20 May 2025.

The Respondent submitted that it had paid all staff their statutory public holiday entitlement since the error was acknowledged on 20 May 2025 and for six months prior to that period. The Respondent noted that the Complainant returned the payment. The Respondent further submitted that it had again, in advance of the hearing, made a payment to the Complainant covering the Public Holidays which fell due in the period commencing from 28 October 2024 to 20 May 2025, covering the entire reckonable period and in such circumstances it submitted there is no breach, or at worst a breach which has since been corrected, within the reckonable time period, and as such it is submitted that no award or finding against the Respondent can or should be made.

Further still, the Respondent submitted that the options open to the WRC is limited to that which is set out pursuant to section 27 of the act, applied proportionately. Without prejudice to the Respondents position that no award of finding should be made given that any breach within the reckonable period has been remedied, the Respondent placed reliance on the following case in support of the proportionality of any award which the WRC may consider making and noted that in Connaughton &. Sons Landscaping Ltd v Stolarczwk DWT12107, the Labour Court held that ‘ a significant award of compensation over and above the economic value of an entitlement under the Act” was only appropriate “where there has been a deliberate and conscious breach of a workers rights”. The Respondent submitted that in the current circumstances, there was a genuine error which had now been remedied by the Respondent and in addition, the economic value of the public holiday entitlement to which the Complainant was entitled has been paid to him, albeit that he returned that payment. The Respondent submitted that therefore no further award should be made in favour of the Complainant.

The Respondent again submitted that it had  made the payment of his public holiday entitlement during the reckonable period again in advance of the hearing and that the WRC cannot consider matters which are outside of the reckonable period.

In conclusion the Respondent acknowledged that there had been an error regarding the public holiday entitlement of the Complainant and that this error was remedied by the Respondent, and the Complainant has since been provided with this public holiday entitlement. The Respondent submitted that it had previously made a payment to the Complainant regarding his public holiday entitlement for the period of 6 months prior to May 2025, that being the reckonable period or the vast majority thereof but that payment was returned by the Complainant. In advance of the hearing, the Respondent made this payment again, but including the public holiday of 28 October 2024, that being the entire reckonable period.  In such circumstances it was the Respondent position that there was no breach within the reckonable period and as such the Complainants complaint was not well founded.

The Respondent submitted that without prejudice to the foregoing, if there was a breach of the act within the reckonable period, which was denied, the Respondent has taken steps to address same and as such, this mitigates matters in favour of the Respondent quite significantly.

Redress Sought

The Respondent noted that the Complainant had sought the following redress in his submission:

1.     A formal, written apology.

2.     Payment in full of all monies owed to me.

3.     Interest payment on the above payment in line with that paid to the Revenue Commissioners for late payments.

4.     Payment of the fee paid to my solicitor.

5.     An ex-gratia payment for the delays, anxiety, mental anguish and time spent on formulating my numerous correspondence with Praxis

The Respondent submitted that the WRC has no jurisdiction whatsoever to grant the Complainant the reliefs he had set out above and noted that the WRC is limited to considering the alleged breaches which it considers took place during the reckonable period of between 9 October 2024 and 8 April 2025.

The Respondent noted Section 27(3) of the act which states as follows:

“3) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of a relevant provision shall do one or more of the following, namely:

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision,

(c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment”

The Respondent submitted that the WRC is strictly limited to applying one or more of the foregoing as it sees fit, taking account only of the alleged breaches which took place during the reckonable period, and taking account of the applicable precedent in the area. The Respondent submitted that as the Respondent had taken steps to address, and had addressed the matter in relation to the public holidays in the reckonable period, the appropriate finding would be that there was no breach of the act in the reckonable period.

Representations at Hearing:

The Respondent submitted that the cognisable period for the complaint was from 8 September 2024 to 8 April 2025 in the context that the complaint had been lodged with the WRC on 8 April 2025.  In those circumstances the Respondent submitted that only public holidays that fell within those periods were within the scope of this complaint.

Preliminary issues:

At hearing theRespondent outlined that the only complaint that had been submitted to the WRC was a complaint in relation to non-payment of public holidays under the Organisation of Working Time and that other complaints referred to in the Complainant’s submission did not fall within the scope of the WRC.

The Respondent outlined that the Workplace Relations Act required a Complainant to lodge a complaint within six months from “the date of contravention” and stated that the original contravention described by the Complainant is alleged to have occurred prior to 2023 and that it was clear from the Complainant’s own submission that he became aware of the breach in 2023, yet, despite his awareness and the fact that he had the benefit of legal advice during that time, he did not lodge his complaint until 2025.  The Respondent submitted that the request for an interim payment is irrelevant to the case as the Complainant only lodged his complaint in April 2025.

The substantive Case:

At hearing the Respondent outlined that it had not admitted liability, that calculations were issued in October 2024 and they were done prior to the reckonable period for the instant complaint.  They stated that the Complainant carried out relief work and that the calculations done at that time were done on the wrong basis and had to be corrected. 

He stated that the Respondent had now done an accurate calculation based on the requirements of the legislation and in relation to the cognisable period for the claim and had paid the Complainant for any public holidays that were approved during the period September 2024 to April 2025.  He stated that the Complainant had returned the original payment made by postal order but that the recent payment had been issued to him again and had been paid into his bank account.

The Respondent reiterated that the cognisable period for the complaint was from 8 September 2024 to 8 April 2025 in the context that the complaint had been lodged with the WRC on 8 April 2025.  In those circumstances the Respondent submitted that only public holidays that fell within those periods were within the scope of this complaint.

Post Hearing Submission:

The Respondent submitted a post hearing submission on 18 November 2025 to indicate that the Complainants public holiday entitlement had been paid in two tranches as follows:

·       11 November 2025    Paid €71.70 (for October 2024 public holiday)

·       17 November 2025    Paid €407.73 (remainder of entitlement within cognisable period)

The Respondent also provided a copy of a payslip dated 27 November 2025 which showed the above two payments.

Preliminary Issues:

The Complainant’s complaint related to issues that first came to his attention in July 2023 in relation to the non-payment of his public holiday entitlement.  The Complainant lodged his complaint with the WRC on 8 April 2025 claiming that he had never been paid his public holiday entitlement since the commencement of his employment in October 2020.

The Respondent raised the preliminary issue that the cognisable period for this complaint was from 8 September 2024 to 8 April 2025 and that only public holiday entitlements falling within that timeframe came within the jurisdiction of the Adjudication Officer under the Act.  The Complainant submitted that Ms. Caldwell, on behalf of the Respondent, accepted liability for the underpayments in September 2024 and that it was only when it became clear that an interim payment would not be made that the Complainant was aware that it would be necessary to submit a complaint to the WRC.

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.” 

While the Workplace Relations Act makes provision for an application for an extension of the timeframe in certain circumstances the Complainant confirmed at hearing that he was not making application for such an extension.

Section 41 (6) makes clear that it is necessary for a complaint to submit their complaint under the act within 6 months of the date on which the contravention of the act occurred.  Case law supports the position that lack of knowledge of the law is not an excuse for a late claim, however, case law also supports the position that lack of knowledge of the contravention is an acceptable cause for a late claim.

In that regard I note that the Complainant first raised his complaint regarding the non-payment of his public holiday entitlement in October 2023 and therefore it was incumbent on him to raise his complaint within a 6-month timeframe.

I noted the Complainant position that he only became aware that there was a refusal to rectify the matter in late September/October 2024 and therefore his total claim is within time.  In this regard he drew attention to Ms. Caldwell’s email of 18 September where he stated she accepted liability.  I have given careful consideration to the content of that email and I noted that Ms. Caldwell appended calculations for the Complainant’s review. She also indicated that her expectation was to make the payment in the September payroll.

While I understand that the Complainant may well have only become concerned when agreement regarding payment was not reached at that time it remains evident to me that the Complainant was aware of the breach of the Organisation of Working Time as far back as October 2023 and he cannot resile from that date based on subsequent interactions with the Respondent.  It is clear from the abundant correspondence between the parties that at no time was there agreement reached on the amount outstanding or on a settlement payment.

In all of the circumstances I am satisfied that my jurisdiction extends only to the cognisable period of 6 months prior to 8 April 2025.

Additional Complaints:

Based on the clarification provided by the Complainant I am satisfied that the only complaint before me relates to a complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act relating to non-receipt of public holiday entitlements.

The Substantive Issue:

The Complainant alleged that he did not receive his public holiday entitlement.  The Respondent contended that it had made payment for all public holidays that fell within the cognisable period.

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 8 April 2025.  In accordance with Section 41 of the Act, the cognisable time period is from  8 October 2024 to 8 April 2025. In that period there were 6 public holidays as follows:

28 October 2024

25 December 2024

26 December 2024

1 January 2025

3 February 2025

18 March 2025

It is clear to me that the Complainant was entitled to one of the provisions set out at Section 21 (1) above and at the date of the hearing he gave evidence that he had not received any compensation for the days in question. 

I noted that the Respondent provided a submission to the WRC on 11 November 2025 in which it stated,

“The Respondent has paid all staff their statutory public holiday entitlement since the error was acknowledged on the 20th May 2025 and for six months prior to that period. ….. The Complainant returned the payment.

The Respondent has again, in advance of the hearing, made a payment to the Complainant covering the Public Holidays which fell due in the period commencing from the 28th October 2024 to the 20th May 2025, covering the entire reckonable period.”

The Respondent provided a copy of the payslip relating to the May 2025 payment, however, the Respondent did not provide any evidence at hearing of the second payment made in November 2025and no sworn evidence was given to support the Respondent contention in this regard.

I noted that the Complainant had returned the payment made in May 2025 and that he did so on the basis that the calculations upon which the payment was made were incorrect.

I further noted that on the day of the hearing the Complainant had not received any notification that payments had been made to him and that he was unaware of any payment.  The Complainant undertook to send the WRC a copy of his bank statement to clarify if payment was made.

Subsequent to the hearing on 18 November 2025 the Respondent provided the WRC with a copy of the Complainant’s payslip which was dated 27 November 2026 showing payment for the public holidays in question.  As this was a post-dated document and could not be supported by sworn evidence, I have not factored it into my considerations.

In addition, the Complainant furnished the WRC with a copy of his bank statement showing a payment of €71.70 for 11 November 2025, and a further payment of €407.73 on 17 November 2025 (the day of the hearing).

Taking all of the above into account I am satisfied that I had no evidence at hearing that the Complainant was paid for the public holidays due to him within the cognisable period and so I find that his complaint was well founded.

Section 27(3) of the act which states as follows:

“A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of a relevant provision shall do one or more of the following, namely:

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision,

(c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment”

In considering this matter I wassatisfied that I had no evidence at hearing that the Complainant was paid for the public holidays due to him within the cognisable period and so I found that his complaint was well founded, and in accordance with Section 27(3) (a) I decide accordingly.

In accordance with the provisions of Section 27(3)(b) I direct the Respondent to put in place appropriate remuneration measures, in accordance with Section 21(1) to:

·       Compensate zero hours contract staff who work a public holiday, and

·       Make provision for zero hours contract staff who do not work on a public holiday but who have worked a total of 40 hours in the previous 5 weeks.

I accept, based on the Complainant’s bank statements, that the Complainant was paid for the 6 public holidays that fell within the cognisable period of this complaint at some time after the hearing took place.  In that context, no further payment arises for said dates

.

In accordance with Section 27(3)(c) direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €1,200 compensation for breaches of the Act.

Public holiday entitlement