ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00059775
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Yasemin Varol | The Merrion Hotel |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives |
| John Lynch Whitney Moore LLP |
Complaint:
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-00072789-001 | 25/06/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/01/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 an employee can present a complaint or complaints of any perceived contravention by the Employer of any of the Acts (Statutes) contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015. Any such complaint (usually presented in the format of a workplace relations complaint form) is made to the Director General of the WRC. The said Director General can then refer the complaint to the Adjudication services. It is in these circumstances that this matter has come before me - an Adjudication Officer engaged by the Adjudication division of the WRC - to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or complaints made. Where appropriate, I hear the parties’ oral evidence, and I can give consideration to any supporting evidence provided by witnesses or relevant documentation.
In this instance, the Complainant has made a single complaint of the Employer having contravened an Act contained in Schedule 5 above referred to. The Act in question is the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 wherein at Section 11 it is directed that an employee shall be entitled to a rest period of not less than 11 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours that an employee works for an employer. In practical terms this mean that once an employee finishes work they must have at least eleven uninterrupted hours off before they start working again.
It is noted that pursuant to Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (as amended), a decision of an Adjudication Officer as provided for under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act shall do one or more of the following:
- (i) Declare the complaint was or was not well founded;
- (ii) Require the Employer to comply with the relevant provision;
- (iii) Require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances but not exceeding 2 years remuneration.
It is critically important in the context of the within workplace relations complaint form that I, as the assigned Adjudication Officer must be aware of applicable time limits. In this regard, the Workplace Relations Act specifies at Section 41 (6) that (subject to s.s.8) an Adjudication Officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to said Adjudication Officer after the expiration of the period of six months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the Complaint relates.
Section 41 (8) specifies that the Adjudication Officer may entertain a Complaint or dispute to which section 41 applies after the expiration of the six month period referred to in ss. (6) and (7) – though not later than a further six months after the initial expiration as the case may be - if the Adjudication Officer is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.
In effect, I cannot hear or entertain any complaint referred to the WRC under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 if it has been presented after the expiration of a six-month period beginning on the date of the contravention (as set out in Section 41(6) of the Act). I can extend that period to twelve months if a Complainant can demonstrate that that the failure to present the complaint within the first six-month period (after the contravention) was due to reasonable cause.
The Labour Court, in Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT0338 28/10/2003, considered the issue of “reasonable cause” in the context of a similar provision to S.41(8) of the WRA and contained (as it happens) in the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Section 27(5) which stated:
“Not withstanding subsection (4) a Rights Commissioner may entertain a complaint under this section presented to him or her after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (4) (but not later than 12 months of such expiration) if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint within that period was due to reasonable cause”
In considering the phrase reasonable cause, the Labour Court stated:
“It is the Court’s view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford and excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time.”
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.
In line with the coming into effect of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 on the 29th of July 2021, I can confirm that the witnesses herein were required to give their evidence on oath or affirmation. This was done in anticipation of the fact that there may have been a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to the complaint. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.
In the interests of fairness, the WRC acquiesced to an application made for the provision of an interpreter. It is noted that the interpreter is provided to assist the Adjudicator to conduct an orderly and fair hearing of the Complaints being made by the Complainant in her preferred language. The interpreter did not guide or assist the Complainant. The Interpreter simply interpreted what was being said by the Complainant and made an Affirmation to well and truly interpret. I perceived there to be no difficulty in communication between the Interpreter and he Complainant.
The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 25th of June 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date – from the 26th of December 2024 to the 25th of June 2025.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was not represented and made her own case.. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant provided me with a comprehensive submission dated the 17th of December 2025. In addition, the Complainant relied on the comprehensive submission set out in her workplace relations complaint form which read:- To Whom It May Concern, My name is Yasemin Varol. I worked full-time as a Switchboard Operator/Receptionist at The Merrion Hotel in Dublin from February 2024 until my resignation on May 20th, 2025. I am submitting this complaint to request an adjudication hearing concerning breaches of employment law and the negative impact they had on my health and well-being. From March to October 2024, I was repeatedly scheduled for shifts that did not allow for the legally required 11 hours of rest between working days. This occurred on nine occasions, in breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. By late May 2024, I began experiencing persistent twitching in my left eye, which interfered significantly with my daily life. The twitching occurred every day for approximately a month and a half, affecting my ability to rest and function normally. On May 29th, I consulted a doctor who confirmed that the symptoms were likely due to fatigue and stress caused by my working conditions. I have a medical report and 10 video recordings documenting the condition. I reported this issue to the HR Director in October 2024 and requested a formal investigation. I was told the scheduling was intended to meet staff preferences, though I had never made such requests. Despite an apology, no corrective action was taken immediately. After my complaint in October, these shifts continued to be assigned to my colleagues. When I personally asked HR why the shifts were still being allocated this way despite my complaint, they then took the necessary action. Due to the ongoing stress caused by my work schedule and environment, I began to suffer from physical and psychological effects. In mid-September 2024, I began experiencing episodes of acute anxiety and panic attacks. In October, I consulted my GP, who diagnosed me with work-related stress and anxiety, and prescribed antidepressants as part of my treatment. These challenges continued to affect my health and ultimately led to my resignation on May 20th, 2025. I have retained full documentation including shift rosters, medical records, video evidence, and email correspondence. I had previously submitted a complaint and was contacted by Mr. Peter Donnelly from the Mediation Service. However, I was advised that pursuing compensation would require adjudication rather than mediation. As a result, I withdrew my initial complaint and am now submitting it again to request an adjudication hearing. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kind regards, Yasemin Varol The Complainant provided me with some supporting documentation including shift rosters etc. The Complainant alleges that she not being given 11 consecutive hours of a break away from the workplace in each period of 24-hour period and that this amounted to a contravention of Section 11 of the OWT Act. Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent had full legal representation at this hearing. There were a number of witnesses from the Employer company also attending the hearing. The Respondent provided me with a comprehensive written submissions in August of 2025. In the end I did not hear from the Respondent witnesses, as the Respondent Representative urged that I look instead at the cognisable period during which there is no suggestion that there was any contravention of Section 11 of the Organisation of Working Time Act. In it’s submission the Respondent asserted: This complaint is not brought within 6 months of the alleged contravention, and by section 27(4) an Adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to entertain it. An Adjudicator may only consider the complaint if an application is made by the Applicant to extend the period, and where the Adjudicator is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint within the required six-month period was due to “reasonable cause” Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in the course of this hearing In her evidence the Complainant agreed that any issues she might have had around her daily rest periods arose during her employment in 2024. The Complainant confirmed that from the 26th of December 2024 to the date of the issuing of the workplace complaint form she could not identify any instance of a contravention of the Organisation of Working Time Act. It is clear from her narrative that the Complainant was having health issues in the workplace during the cognizable period which meant she was not in the workplace for tranches of time. The Complainant had raised the issue of daily rest periods in her place of employment as far back as October 2024. I understand that the Employer and Employee tried to work through this issue. By the end of that year and the start of 2025 the Employee was in the workplace and was getting her daily rest breaks as provided for under the Act. The Complainant appears to have formally raised the issue of daily rest breaks with the WRC in and around April of 2025 and this workplace relations complaint form was withdrawn by the Complainant. The Complainant raised the exact same issue in the complaint form grounding this matter which issued in June of 2025. The evidence demonstrates that the Complainant was aware of the availability of the WRC to Adjudicate on matters. I appreciate that there might have been other issues of concern to the Complainant (as set out in the narrative) though it is not clear if health issues were attributable to the place of work. The Complainant provided no evidence which might allow for an extended period to consider breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act. In short, the Complainant did not provide any reason to show which both explain the delay and afford and excuse for the delay.If anything, the Complainant demonstrated that she was aware of her right to bring matters to the attention of her Employer and the WRC.
|
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00072789-001 – The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the Complainant has not established a contravention of the Act in the six-month period immediately preceding the making of the complaint.
|
Dated: 20th of January 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|