ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00063572
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Eileen Reilly | Praxis Care Limited |
Representatives | Self-represented | Barry O’Mahony BL instructed by ARAG Legal Protection Ltd |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 | CA-00076103-001 | 07/10/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 | CA-00076103-002 | 07/10/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/06/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kara Turner
Procedure:
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
A remote hearing was held in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The hearing was conducted in public; there were no special circumstances to warrant otherwise, or to warrant anonymisation of this decision.
Eileen Reilly (the “complainant”) attended the hearing along with a colleague. Praxis Care Limited (the “respondent”) was represented by Barry O’Mahony BL instructed by Paula Walshe of ARAG Legal Protection Limited, with James Jennings, HR Business Partner for the respondent, also in attendance.
Background:
The complainant is employed by the respondent as a social care support worker. The complaints referred to the Commission concern public holiday entitlements. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced employment with the respondent as a support worker in or around 2017. In 2023, the complainant raised a concern about non-receipt of public holiday benefit for working on public holidays. The complainant was employed under a relief/casual contract at the material time. In May 2025, the respondent informed the complainant she did not qualify for any backdated payment, notwithstanding previous communication which advised otherwise. The complainant submitted a delay in making her complaint was due to misguided information provided by the respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The complaint appears to arise from a historical grievance raised by the complainant in or around October 2023. The respondent acknowledges and regrets an error in relation to the provision of public holiday benefit for workers engaged on relief only contracts. The complainant moved from being a casual/relief worker to a permanent worker in August 2024 and from that time received all public holiday entitlements due to her. The cognisable period for the purposes of the complaint is from 8 April 2025 to 7 October 2025. The complainant received all her public holiday entitlements during this period. There is no reasonable cause to warrant an extension of the timeframe for adjudication, however, without prejudice to the foregoing and for completeness, the complainant received her public holiday entitlements for the entirety of the 12-month period prior to referral of her complaints to the Commission. There is no breach of the 1997 Act during the cognisable period and the complainant’s complaint is therefore unstateable. The complainant’s complaint pursuant to section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 is misconceived and unstateable. There is no ERO in place for the industry in which the complainant works. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00076103-001 (Industrial Relations Act 1946)
The complaint referred to the Commission was of non-receipt of public holiday entitlements set out in an Employment Regulation Order (“ERO”).
It was agreed that the respondent’s main business activity is the provision of social care support services. This sector is not covered by an ERO. The complainant did not provide any information to ground the complaint under the Industrial Relations Act 1946.
I therefore find that this complaint of a contravention of an employment regulation order in relation to the complainant is not well founded.
CA-00076103-002 (Organisation of Working Time Act 1997)
The complaint referred to the Commission on 7 October 2025 was in relation to not having received public holiday entitlements in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the “1997 Act”).
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (the “2015 Act”) applies to this complaint. Section 41(6) requires complaints for adjudication be referred to the Commission within a certain timeframe, specifically: -
“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.”
Subsection (8) provides for extension of the 6-month timeframe to 12-months where an Adjudication Officer is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint within the 6-month period was due to reasonable cause.
Accordingly, the outer limit of my adjudicative function in respect of this complaint is the period from 8 October 2024.
At the hearing, the complainant advised that her complaint concerned non-receipt of public holiday benefit while employed as a relief/casual worker.
The complainant confirmed that she moved from a casual/relief contract to a permanent contract of employment in August 2024. The complainant further confirmed her agreement with the respondent’s records of public holiday benefit in respect of the complainant for the period from 1 August 2024 to 31 March 2026, and her receipt of public holiday benefit in accordance with those records.
I am satisfied from the information before me that the within complaint concerns the respondent’s position in relation to back-payment of public holiday benefit for relief staff, as set out in its correspondence to the complainant dated 23 May 2025, the effect of which was that the complainant did not qualify for any backdated payment. The date of the respondent’s correspondence does not assist the complainant in terms of the jurisdictional issue of the statutory timeframe for referral of a complaint to the Commission; the complained of contravention relates to section 21 of the 1997 Act, namely entitlement to public holiday benefit, and the complainant confirms receipt of public holiday benefit in accordance with that section in the period from 1 August 2024.
I do not have jurisdiction under the 1997 Act to adjudicate on the respondent’s communications to the complainant regarding back-payment of public holiday benefit, nor do I have jurisdiction to adjudicate on a complaint of a contravention of section 21 of the 1997 Act outside of the statutory timeframes set out in section 41 of the 2015 Act.
In the circumstances, I find that the complaint of a contravention of section 21 of the 1997 Act is not well founded.
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00076103-001 For the reasons set out above, my decision is that the complaint of a contravention of an employment regulation order in relation to the complainant is not well founded.
CA-00076103-002 For the reasons set out above, my decision is that the complaint of a contravention of section 21 of the 1997 Act is not well founded. |
Dated: 31st August 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kara Turner
Key Words:
Public holiday benefit- Employment Regulation Order – Statutory timeframes for referral of a complaint |