Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Amalia  Olasu

PVH Ltd Calvin Klein

Representatives

Fonn Long, BL, instructed by Ciaran Doyle MASON HAYES & CURRAN LLP

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-00062328-001

13/03/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 8 of the European Communities (Working Conditions of Mobile Workers engaged in Interoperable Cross-Border Services in the Railway Sector) Regulations, 2009-SI No. 377 of

CA-00062328-002

13/03/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00062328-003

13/03/2024

The Complainant  made the within complaints by way of a manual complaint form and did not submit further information in advance of the hearing.

The Respondent’s senior area manager advised that they recently received a complaint and hearing invitation relating to the above matter. The correspondence had been addressed to a former store manager who left the organisation 14 months ago, which resulted in a delay in the Respondent’s response.

The senior area manager requested clarification on what is required for the case, as the events occurred before their commencement with the company and they are not familiar with the individual involved.

The employment began on the 16/12/2023 and ended on the 26/12/2023

The Complainant made three complaints that did not receive a payslip, and that they did not receive rest breaks and that there was a breach of Regulation 8 of the European Communities (Working Conditions of Mobile Workers engaged in Interoperable Cross-Border Services in the Railway Sector) Regulations, 2009-SI No. 377. However, the Complainant did not attend and offered nor reason nor excuse to the Commission.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant’s form lacks detail but understands the complaints to concern alleged breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act regarding daily rest and maximum hours, an alleged breach of the Road Transport Activities Regulations, and an allegation of not receiving a payslip, which appears to fall under section 4 of the Payment of Wages Act. All complaints are fully contested.

The Respondent argues that there has been a significant procedural irregularity because the WRC did not notify them of the complaints until 24 November 2025, almost two years after the Complainant’s employment ended. As a result of this delay, key factual witnesses have left the business, leaving the Respondent reliant on secondary evidence.

The Respondent attempted to resolve the matter and contacted the Complainant but did not receive a response. Background information shows the Complainant worked as a seasonal Sales Associate at the Blanchardstown store for approximately two weeks in December 2023. Due to the short duration of employment and an incomplete Workday registration, the Complainant’s hours were recorded manually by the store manager and logged as “Unassigned Shifts.” The roster and internal systems indicate that required daily rest periods were provided and maximum working hours were not exceeded. A payslip was generated and made available through the Respondent’s online portal.

Regarding the Road Transport complaint, the Respondent submits it is misconceived because the Complainant worked in retail and did not perform road transport activities, meaning the Regulations do not apply.

On the Organisation of Working Time Act allegations, the Respondent states that no specific dates or details have been provided. The roster demonstrates compliance with daily rest requirements. The maximum-hours complaint is said to be legally unsustainable because the Complainant’s two‑week employment period cannot satisfy the statutory four‑month reference period.

On the payslip issue, the Respondent states that a payslip was issued through the online portal, satisfying section 4 of the Payment of Wages Act.

The Respondent concludes by submitting that all complaints should be dismissed.

The complainant was duly notified of the date, time, and location of the adjudication hearing. The complainant did not attend the hearing and did not make any application for an adjournment, nor did they provide any explanation for their absence. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the complainant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

Findings: In accordance with section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (and the relevant statutory provisions governing the specific complaint), where a complainant fails to attend the hearing and no evidence is presented in support of the complaint, I am unable to investigate the matter further. As no evidence has been adduced, the complaint is hereby dismissed.

I find that the complaints are not well-founded.