ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058537
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mokhtar Omar | HSE National Employee Relations (Mr. Eamonn Ross) |
Representatives |
| Eamonn Ross |
Complaint(s):
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-00071067-001 | 24/04/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00071067-002 | 24/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
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.
The parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised.
The complainant made an application to anonymise this decision on the ground of professional sensitivity and reputational impact. I have considered this application and I am not satisfied that the complainant has provided special circumstances to justify anonymising this decision. Accordingly, the parties are named in this decision.
The complainant, was self-represented. The respondent was represented by its Employee Relations Manager.
Background:
The complainant submitted claims under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 on 24th of April 2025. The second claim CA-00071067-002 was withdrawn at the hearing on 20th of October 2025 but the complainant indicated that he wished to proceed with the first claim CA-00071067-001 . |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that In January 2018, the respondent issued a circular regarding holiday premium payments in accordance with the Employment Organisation Act 1997 which defined employee entitlement to payment and set the criteria to ensure that a standardised approach for the calculation of holiday premium pay throughout the health sector: The complainant submits that the respondent did not however apply a standard approach to holiday premium payments and applied it only to General assistants who received payments backdated to 2017. The complainant submits that the respondent is in breach of Organisation of Working Time Act and that the complainant did not receive his paid holiday annual leave entitlement The complainant submits that he is entitled to an amount of €17,046.75 in respect of Holiday pay accrued. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that the matters raised have already been the subject of discussion and agreement between the respondent and the union. The respondent submits that the matter of the holiday premium payment has already been resolved in the IR arena. The respondent submits that there is no valid complaint under the OWT Act. All overtime is voluntary and not compulsory. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00071067-001 | 24/04/2025 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This matter was first listed for hearing on 8th of August 2025 during which the hearing was advised that the parties were engaging in discussions with the union to reach an agreement on the holiday premium payment. The hearing was advised that the next meeting in this regard was scheduled for 27th of August 2025. The parties agreed at the hearing that the matter be adjourned pending the meeting of 27th of August between the respondent and the union. The second hearing took place on 20th of October 2025. At the second hearing the parties indicated that an agreement had been reached with the union and the respondent in respect of the holiday premium pay. The second claim was withdrawn at the hearing but the complainant indicated that he wished to proceed with the first claim. The complainant in his claim form submitted that the respondent was in breach of Organisation of Working Time Act and that the complainant did not receive his paid holiday annual leave entitlement. The details provided on the form stated that the complainant was owed €17, 046.75 in respect of holiday premium pay dating back to 2017. The respondent advised the hearing that this matter had been resolved and that the complainant had been paid the outstanding holiday premium payment in accordance with an agreement reached between the union and the respondent. The complainant at the hearing sought to raise matters which he is states have arisen since the agreement and outside of his complaint form. The complainant further submitted that the respondent following this OWT agreement has placed a restriction on pharmacists’ weekend work citing OWTA concerns, he states that the respondent has altered and delayed meeting minutes, and has attempted to exclude him from professional meetings. The complainant submits that this amounts to retaliatory conduct following his claim. The respondent advised the hearing that the agreement was one which was agreed between the respondent and the union of which the complainant is a member and that the matters contained therein have been agreed in the IR arena. The complainant at the hearing agreed that this was the case but that he sought to raise additional matters in respect of the agreement and in respect of the way in which the agreement has been implemented stating that the agreement has placed a restriction on overtime payments for pharmacists specifically restricting the amount of weekend overtime they are permitted to carry out citing OWTA concerns as justification. The complainant at the hearing also argued that overtime should be included in the calculation of Holiday pay. The respondent stated that as per the agreement, overtime payments (with the exception of regular and rostered overtime payments) are not included in the calculation of holiday pay. The respondent advised the hearing that the overtime to which the complainant was referring is voluntary and that there is no compulsory overtime in the complainants’ work area. The complainant agreed that this was the case, but he stated that the overtime was necessary. The complainant went on to state that there was discrimination stating that paying one group and denying others the same entitlement for the same type of hours is discriminatory. The complainant stead that General Assistants had been treated more favourably. I note that there is no claim of discrimination before me and no ground of discrimination has been outlined. The complainant at the hearing stated that here are also acts of penalisation to be considered. The respondent objected to the raising of matters outside of the claims in the within claim form. At the hearing of the claim the complainant was asked to outline his claim as submitted under the within claim reference. The complainant indicated that he would be submitting additional claims. In considering the within matter I note that the claim relates to an assertion by the complainant that the respondent had breached the Organisation of Working time Act by failing to pay him his paid holiday/annual leave entitlements and stated that the complainant was owed c €17,000 in holiday premium payments. I am satisfied from the evidence adduced at the hearing that the outstanding holiday premium payments have since been paid and that this matter is resolved. Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00071067-002 | 24/04/2025 |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
This claim was withdrawn at the hearing; accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Dated: 12/02/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Key Words:
|