Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jake  Mc Daid

Sky Handling Partner Limited

Representatives

Holly Smith Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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-00076612-001

20/10/2025

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Passenger Service Agent from 27 February 2023 until the termination of his employment on 11 April 2025.

He stated that he had pre-approved annual leave scheduled for the period 21 March 2025 to 31 March 2025. Prior to that leave commencing, he was placed on paid suspension. He stated that he specifically asked the Terminal Services Manager what would happen to his approved annual leave and was assured that the leave hours would be reverted while he was on suspension.

The Complainant stated that when his employment was terminated on 11 April 2025 he was informed that all monies due to him would be paid by 9 May 2025. When payment was not received, he made enquiries and subsequently discovered that the period from 21 March 2025 to 31 March 2025 had in fact been treated as annual leave taken.

The Complainant submitted that following an incident with a passenger on 28 February 2025, he was placed on paid suspension on 20 March 2025. At that time, he had already been approved for annual leave from 21 March 2025 to 31 March 2025, amounting to 80 hours' leave. He contended that during a discussion with the Terminal Services Manager, he specifically asked what would happen to his approved leave while he was suspended and was assured that the holiday hours would be reverted and restored to his leave balance.

The Complainant stated that his employment was terminated on 11 April 2025 and that he was informed that all monies due to him would be paid by 9 May 2025. When payment was not received, he made repeated enquiries. He subsequently learned from payroll correspondence that the Respondent had treated the period from 21 March to 31 March 2025 as annual leave taken and had not restored those hours.

The Complainant's position is that, having been assured that the leave would be reverted because he was on suspension, he remained entitled to payment for those 80 hours on termination of his employment. At €14 per hour, he claims that he is owed €1,120.

The Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was lodged outside the six-month time limit prescribed by section 27(4) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and should therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Respondent argued that the relevant events occurred no later than March 2025, or alternatively upon termination on 11 April 2025, and that the complaint lodged on 20 October 2025 was therefore out of time.

On the substantive issue, the Respondent denied that the Complainant's annual leave was ever restored. It submitted that the leave from 21 March 2025 to 31 March 2025 had been requested by the Complainant, approved in advance and properly recorded as annual leave. The Respondent contended that the Complainant never sought to cancel, amend or reschedule that leave through the company's leave management procedures and that no record exists of any such change.

The Respondent further submitted that the Terminal Services Manager did not give the assurance alleged by the Complainant. They argued that the Complainant remained free to enjoy his annual leave during the period in question, that the leave was genuinely taken, and that he received his full statutory annual leave entitlement. For those reasons, the Respondent maintained that there was no contravention of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

Preliminary Issue: Time Limits

Section 41(6) Workplace Relations Act 2015 states as follows

"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 submits that the complaint is out of time because it relates to annual leave scheduled between 21 March 2025 and 31 March 2025 and the complaint was not lodged until 20 October 2025.

I do not accept that submission. The complaint is not, in substance, a complaint regarding the scheduling of annual leave in March 2025. Rather, it is a complaint that annual leave which the Complainant says was to be restored during his suspension was not restored and was not paid to him on the termination of his employment.

The Complainant's evidence was that he was informed on 11 April 2025 that monies due to him would be paid by 9 May 2025. It was only after payment was not made and subsequent enquiries were pursued that it became apparent that the Respondent considered the disputed leave entitlement to have been exhausted.

I am satisfied that the alleged contravention crystallised on 9 May 2025 when the Respondent failed to pay the entitlement claimed by the Complainant following the termination of his employment. The complaint, having been lodged on 20 October 2025, was therefore presented within the statutory six-month period.

I find that the complaint is properly before me and that I have jurisdiction to determine it.

Substantive Complaint

Section 19(1) Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 states as follows:

Subject to the First Schedule (which deals with the accrual of annual leave), an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave equal to:

(a) 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours,

(b) one-third of a working week for each calendar month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours, or

(c) 8 per cent of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks).

Section 23 of the Act further states:

23.(1) (a) Where—

(i) an employee ceases to be employed, and

(ii) the whole or any portion of the annual leave in respect of the relevant period remains to be granted to the employee,

the employee shall, as compensation for the loss of that annual leave, be paid by his or her employer an amount equal to the pay, calculated at the normal weekly rate or, as the case may be, at a rate proportionate to the normal weekly rate, that he or she would have received had he or she been granted that annual leave.

The principal issue for determination is whether the Respondent was entitled to treat the period from 21 March 2025 to 31 March 2025 as annual leave taken by the Complainant while he was on paid suspension.

The Complainant gave sworn evidence that he raised this specific issue with the Terminal Services Manager and that she assured him that his annual leave hours would be reverted while he remained on suspension.

The Respondent's written submission stated that the Terminal Services Manager denied that any such conversation took place.  However, the Terminal Services Manager did not attend the hearing to give evidence. Consequently, her alleged denial was not tested in evidence and I had no opportunity to assess her account or to hear her response to the Complainant's evidence.

By contrast, the Complainant attended the hearing and gave direct sworn evidence regarding the conversation. I found his evidence to be clear, consistent and credible.

The Respondent's argument that no amendment was made through its leave management procedures does not satisfactorily address the central issue. The Complainant's case is that he sought clarification from the relevant manager and was expressly informed that the leave would be reverted because he was on suspension. If such an assurance was given, it was reasonable for the Complainant to rely upon it.

In circumstances where the Respondent elected not to call the individual who allegedly made the representation, I prefer the direct oral evidence of the Complainant to the Respondent's contrary assertion contained in its written submission.

On the balance of probabilities, I accept the Complainant's evidence that he was assured that his annual leave would be restored while he was on suspension. I find that the Respondent subsequently treated that leave as having been taken and failed to pay the corresponding entitlement on termination of employment.

The Complainant's unchallenged evidence was that the leave in question amounted to 80 hours at a rate of €14 per hour, representing a total entitlement of €1,120. I accept that evidence.

I find that the complaint is well founded and direct that the Respondent makes a payment to the Complainant in the amount of €1,120, namely his outstanding leave entitlement of 80 hours at a rate of €14 per hour.