Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Berk  Atakan

Cross Retail Convenience Group Limited t/a Cross Centra Roseberry Hill

Representatives

Self-represented

Lorna Campbell, HR Consultant

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-00076199-001

10/10/2025

The complaint is that Sunday premium is not paid in accordance with Section 14 of the Act.

The respondent denies the claim.

The complainant said that the Sunday premium rate of 5% is unreasonable. This percentage was not included in his contract when he commenced in April 2022 as it stated- ‘For hours worked on a Sunday you will receive a premium for hours worked’. As the premium was so low he was unaware he was receiving a premium, so he made enquiries with his employer to clarify the position.

He said he could work a shift of 12 hours on a Sunday and only receive 71 cent extra per hour. The retail sector pays from 33% up to 50% premium. He said he was about to commence new employment with a large retailer who pays time and a half as Sunday premium. He showed the contract that he had just signed which showed that Sunday hours were paid at time and a half.

He said the Act states if he is required to work on a Sunday, the amount should be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. He said the 5% was more symbolic than reasonable compensation.

He concluded that although the employer is stating that 5% is the premium paid to all employees, it states in other staff contracts that Sunday premium is paid at 20%.  

Ms. Campbell on behalf of the respondent submitted that the contract states that premium is paid for Sunday, and the Act does not prescribe a specific rate.

The complaint was made to the WRC on 10th October 2025 and is outside the timeframe to make a complaint as the complainant had six months to submit a WRC complaint. It was submitted that the complainant was aware of the rate as he received payslips from when he started in April 2022. The 5% premium is paid to all employees. He was treated no less favourably than anyone else. The premium of 5% has always been in place.

The complainant ceased employment in February 2026. It was submitted that the complainant’s new employer is a large retailer whereas the respondent is an independent retailer.

The Law

Sunday work: supplemental provisions.

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.

(2) Subsection (3) applies to an employee where the value or the minimum value of the compensation to be provided to him or her in respect of his or her being required to work on a Sunday is not specified by a collective agreement.

(3) For the purposes of proceedings under Part IV before a rights commissioner or the Labour Court in relation to a complaint that this section has not been complied with in relation to an employee to whom this subsection applies (“the first-mentioned employee”), the value or the minimum value of the compensation that a collective agreement for the time being specifies shall be provided to a comparable employee in respect of his or her being required to work on a Sunday shall be regarded as the value of compensation to be provided under this section to the first-mentioned employee that is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances:

Provided that if each of 2 or more collective agreements for the time being specifies the value or the minimum value of the compensation to be provided to a comparable employee to whom the agreement relates in respect of his or her being required to work on a Sunday and the said values or minimum values are not the same whichever of the said values or minimum values is the less shall be regarded, for the purposes aforesaid, as the value of compensation to be provided under this section to the first-mentioned employee that is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

(4) Unless the fact of such a value being so specified has come to the notice of the rights commissioner or the Labour Court, as the case may be, it shall be for the person who alleges in proceedings referred to in subsection (3) that a value of compensation of the kind referred to in that subsection is specified by a collective agreement mentioned in that subsection to show that, in fact, such a value is so specified.

(5) In subsection (3) “comparable employee” means an employee who is employed to do, under similar circumstances, identical or similar work in the industry or sector of employment concerned to that which the first-mentioned employee in subsection (3) is employed to do.

The Code of Practice on Sunday Working in the Retail Trade and Related Matters

3.3 All new agreements being entered into should be negotiated between the employer and the relevant trade union(s) representing employees, based on a consensus approach. In circumstances where employees are not unionised the agreement should be negotiated between the employer and the employees who are affected by Sunday trading. 

Findings

The cognisable period for this complaint is from 11th April 2025 to the date the complaint form was received by the WRC on 10th October 2025.

The Complainant said he was unaware of a Sunday premium rate as it was not included in his contract. When he queried this, it was clarified that it was 5%. He was aware that other staff in the same employment had contracts with a 20% Sunday premium.

The respondent position is that the 5% always applied to the complainant from the start of his employment. It was accepted that it was not specified in his contract although he should have been aware of this from his payslips.

The Code of Practice above states that where employees are not unionised the agreement should be negotiated between the employer and the employees who are affected by Sunday trading. At the hearing, there was no evidence presented that a negotiation took place and the contract corroborates this as there is no reference to a percentage Sunday Premium. The complainant said that some other colleagues have a 20% premium included in their contracts. The complainant submits that the rate is symbolic and is not reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, as per section 14 of the Act. He showed a contract he just signed with a larger retailer which demonstrates Sunday premium is paid at time and a half.

Section 14 (5) of the Act states defines a comparable employee as a person doing identical or similar work in the industry or sector of employment.

The employee is now a former employee and is seeking a higher premium over the course of his employment. As section 14 of the Act commences with ‘An employee who is required to work on a Sunday ……’ I consider that this is a subsisting issue, as per An Animal Carer v. A Charity ADJ-00009820 and the complaint is within time.

In accordance with Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 under Section 41 (6) states-

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.

Therefore, the cognisable period for this complaint is from 11th April to 10th October 2025.

It is clear from the facts of the case that the Code of Practice has not been adhered to as there was no evidence of engagement and no premium percentage in the contract. Also, there is the question of a suitable comparator. Ms. Campbell submitted that the respondent is an independent retailer and not a large retailer. The complainant has put forward a comparator who pays time and a half. In Labour Court decision of Scally v. Lynch & Kelly DWT13102 there was similar confusion over the percentage premium. In that case, the Labour Court stated-

‘In this case, there is no collective agreement applicable to workers in a comparable position to that of the Claimants. The Rights Commission found that the premium that was reasonable in all the circumstances amounted to time and one half. No reason has been suggested to the Court as to why the Rights Commissioner’s conclusion in that regard should be interfered with.’

However, in this case, the appropriate premium rate is contested.

I find that there has been a breach of the Code and consequently the Act in that there is no evidence that a reasonable rate has been negotiated or discussed. As the complainant has left the employment, no engagement is possible or practical at this stage.

Due to the circumstances, I order the respondent pay a premium of 33% to the complainant for all Sunday hours worked from 11th April 2025 up to 10th October 2025.

I consider that it is appropriate to order a compensation payment as the complainant spent time and effort to pursue his rights under the Act. In deciding on an appropriate amount, I am guided by the Labour Court in J & J Retail Limited Trading as Jack & Jones v. Jake Quinn DWT2319. I order that the respondent pay compensation of €500.00 to the complainant.  

I decide the complaint is well founded. I order the respondent to pay a premium of 33% to the complainant for all Sunday hours worked from 11th April 2025 up to 10th October 2025.

I also order that the respondent pay compensation of €500.00 to the complainant. For clarity, this compensation award is unrelated to wages.

Sunday Premium