ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056035

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Jose Felix	Avpa Ltd

Representatives

In person

Peninsula Business Services Ireland Ltd

Complaints:

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-00056534-001	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00056534-002	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00056534-003	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00056534-004	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00056534-005	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00056534-006	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 15 of the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006 - S.I. No. 507 of 2006	CA-00056534-007 Withdrawn	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00056534-008	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946	CA-00056534-009 Withdrawn	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18A of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00056534-010	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00056534-011	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00056534-015	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00056534-016 Withdrawn	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003	CA-00056534-017 Withdrawn	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005	CA-00056534-018	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00056534-019	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00056534-020	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule III of the Competition Act, 2002-2010	CA-00056534-021 Withdrawn	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00056534-022	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00056534-023 Withdrawn	06/05/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003	CA-00056534-024 Withdrawn	06/05/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/09/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015following 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.

Background:

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a Car Valet from 11th February 2022 until on or about 9th November 2022. The complainant submitted multiple complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 6th May 2023.

The matter was heard at an adjudication hearing on 11th September 2025 and the complainant represented himself with the assistance of an Interpreter provided by the WRC. At the commencement of the hearing and as the complainant was representing himself, the specifics of the complaints he submitted were explained to him. As some of the complaints did not relate to his employment or to the correct sector, the complainant withdrew several of his complaints at adjudication. The following complaints were withdrawn, CA-00056534-007, 009, 016, 017, 021, 023 and 024.

Cognisable period of the complaints:

The cognisable period of the employment rights complaints is six months prior to their referral to the WRC. (7th November 2022- 6th May 2023). As the complainant’s employment ended on or about 9th November 2022, the reckonable period in this case is 7th November 2022- 9th November 2022.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

CA-00056534-001

The complainant stated he does not receive a Sunday premium.

CA-00056534-002

The complaint relates to an unlawful deduction from the complainant’s pay amounting to €360.00 on 21st September 2022.

CA-00056534-003

The complaint relates to the non-payment of the appropriate rate of pay to the complainant.

CA-00056534-004

This complaint relates to notice entitlements. The complainant is seeking payment for same

CA-00056534-005

The complainant states that he works more than the maximum number of hours permitted each week

CA-00056534-006

The complaint elates to annual leave entitlements. The complainant contends that he did not receive the appropriate annual leave.

CA-00056534-008

The complainant contends he did not receive the appropriate public holiday entitlements.

CA-00056534-010

The complainant contends he was not placed on the appropriate banded hours contract.

CA-00056534-011

The complainant contends he did not receive written notification of changes to his terms and conditions of employment in September 2022.

CA-00056534-015

The complainant contends he was discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of his race. The complainant stated that the discrimination occurred on 31st October 2022.

CA-00056534-018

The complainant contends that he was penalised within the meaning of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005.

CA-00056534-019

The complainant contends he was victimised in contravention of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

CA-00056534-020

The complainant contends that he was Penalised in contravention of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

CA-00056534-022

The complainant contends that he did not receive his redundancy entitlements in contravention of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

CA-00056534-001

The respondent’s position is that the business did not open on a Sunday, therefore the requirement to work on Sundays never arose.

CA-00056534-002

The respondent contends that this complaint is outside of the cognisable period of the complaint and is therefore out of time.

CA-00056534-003

The respondent’s position is that the respondent paid the complainant the entirety of the payments that were due to him throughout the employment.

CA-00056534-004

The respondent’s position is that the complainant resigned from his employment and in those circumstances, the entitlement to notice does not arise.

CA-00056534-005

The respondent contends that the complainant did not work more than the maximum hours of work each work. The respondent’s position is that the complainant was employed to work for 20 hours per week and while he may have worked additional hours on occasion, it was not at the level claimed.

CA-00056534-006

The respondent contends that the complainant received the correct annual leave entitlements during his employment. The respondent further contends that the complainant was paid for the annual leave entitlements that were outstanding when his employment ended.

CA-00056534-008

The respondent’s position is that there were no public holidays within the cognisable period of the complaint and therefore the complaint should be dismissed.

CA-00056534-010

The respondent’s position in relation to this issue is that the complainant, who was a student, worked part time with varying hours depending on his availability. The respondent’s position is that this is not a situation where the complainant was required to be placed on a banded hours contract.

CA-00056534-011

The respondent stated that the complainant sought a reduction in his working hours in September 2022 on the basis that he was returning to college and would not have the same level of availability. The respondent facilitated this and reduced the working hours accordingly.

CA-00056534-015

The respondent’s position is that the complainant has not established facts from which an inference of discrimination can be drawn. On that basis the respondent contends that the complainant has not satisfied the burden of proof that he was discriminated against on the race ground within the cognisable period of the complaint or at all.

CA-00056534-018

The respondent’s position is that the complainant never raised any issues regarding health and safety in the workplace. In addition, the respondent contends that the complainant has not demonstrated that he suffered a detriment and penalised within the cognisable period of the complaint.

CA-00056534-019

The respondent contends that the complainant was not subjected to victimisation or other adverse treatment within the cognisable period of the complaint or at any time during his employment. The respondent contends that the complainant has not satisfied the burden of proof on this issue.

CA-00056534-020

The respondent contends that the complainant was not subjected to unlawful conduct within the cognisable period of the complaint or at any time during his employment. The respondent contends that the complaint should be dismissed.

CA-00056534-022

The respondent’s position on this complaint is that no redundancy situation arose. The respondent stated that the complainant resigned from his employment, yet the position of a car valet remained available to him. On the basis that the role did not cease to exist the respondent contends that the complaint should be dismissed.

Findings and Conclusions:

As previously mentioned, the cognisable period of the complaints is 7th November 2022 – 9th November 2022. The findings below are based on the reckonable three-day period of the complaints.

CA-00056534-001

There is no Sunday in the three-day reckonable period of the complaint. On that basis, the complaint relating to Sunday Premium cannot succeed.

CA-00056534-002

The complaint relating to an unlawful deduction from the complainant’s pay on 21st September 2022 is outside of the cognisable period of the complaint and is therefore out of time.

CA-00056534-003

In respect of the cognisable period of the complaint, the complainant has not shown that he was paid incorrectly. Accordingly, this complaint cannot succeed.

CA-00056534-004

Having considered the verbal submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that the complainant resigned from his employment. On that basis, I find that the entitlement to notice does not arise.

CA-00056534-005

I note from the submissions of the parties that the complainant worked 34 hours in the cognisable period of the complaint (7-9 November 2022). On that basis I find that there is no breach of the legislation.

CA-00056534-006

The complainant contends that he did not receive the appropriate annual leave. The complainant worked for the respondent from 11th February 2022 until on or about 9th November 2022. The period of 1st April 2022 to 9th November 2022 is reckonable for the purpose of this complaint. The complainant was paid for outstanding annual leave entitlements in his payslips dated 27th October 2022 and 10th November 2022. The total annual leave payments made to the complainant amounted to 42.6 hours which was the correct entitlement given the complainant’s time with the respondent and considering that he was employed to work for 20 hours per week as a student at that time. Having considered the matter, I find that the complainant received the correct annual leave entitlements.

CA-00056534-008

As there was no public holiday between 7th November 2022 and 9th November 2022, the complaint cannot succeed.

CA-00056534-010

The complainant contends he was not placed on the appropriate banded hours contract. The complainant was employed from 11 February 2022 until 9th November 2022. He was employed for 20 hours per week of insurable employment and was paid €11.50 per hour. These facts were not disputed at adjudication. Given the realities of the employment relationship and the clear and unambiguous contract, I find that the complaint as submitted is misconceived.

CA-00056534-011

The complainant contends he did not receive written notification of changes to his terms and conditions of employment in September 2022. I find that although the complainant requested the change in hours to facilitate his return to college, the respondent was obliged to provide written clarification of the change to the complainant. As this did not happen, the respondent breached the legislation as claimed. I find that the complainant should receive one week’s pay in respect of the breach.

CA-00056534-015

The complainant contends he was discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of his race. The complainant stated that the discrimination occurred on 31st October 2022. Acts of discrimination alleged to have occurred prior to 7th November 2022 are outside of the cognisable period of the complaint and are therefore out of time.

CA-00056534-018

The complainant contends that he was penalised within the meaning of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005. Within the cognisable period of the complaint (7th November 2022 – 9th November 2022), the complainant has not shown that he was subject to penalisation within the meaning of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005. Accordingly, the complaint cannot succeed.

CA-00056534-019

The complainant contends he was victimised in contravention of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. Within the cognisable period of the complaint (7th November 2022 – 9th November 2022), the complainant has not shown that he was subject to victimisation within the meaning of the legislation. Accordingly, the complaint cannot succeed.

CA-00056534-020

The complainant contends he was penalised in contravention of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. Within the cognisable period of the complaint (7th November 2022 – 9th November 2022), the complainant has not shown that he was subject to penalisation within the meaning of the legislation. Accordingly, the complaint cannot succeed.

CA-00056534-022

The complainant contends that he did not receive his redundancy entitlements. I note the respondent’s position that the complainant’s role in the organisation did not cease to exist. The complainant resigned from his employment on or about 9th November 2022. On that basis, redundancy does not arise, and the complaint cannot succeed.

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.

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.

CA-00056534-001 – Organisations oof Working Time Act, 1997 complaint (Sunday Premium)