ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00061476
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jason Bergin | BC Manufacturing Enterprises Ltd |
Representatives | None | None |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint 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-00075199-001 | 05/09/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act, 2022 | CA-00075199-002 | 05/09/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00075199-003 | 05/09/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/01/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
Procedure:
In accordance with s. 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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaints.
The complaint was heard by way of a remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020 - Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 (Section 31) (Workplace Relations Commission) (Designation) Order, 2020 which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. In attendance for the Respondent was Mr Martin Butler, Office Administrator, Ms Fiona Hickey, Manager, and Mr Brian Behan, Line Leader. Mr Butler confirmed the correct legal title of the Respondent to be ‘BC Manufacturing Enterprises Ltd’. This decision has been amended to reflect the correct legal title of the Respondent. The Complainant was not represented. All persons who gave oral testimony were sworn in.
At the outset of the adjudication hearing, the parties were advised that in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 employment rights and equality hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) are held in public and the decision would not be anonymised unless there were special circumstances for doing so. There was no application to have the matter heard in private or to have the decision anonymised.
The Complainant selected to have his complaints heard under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and the Sick Leave Act, 2022. In the narrative of the complaint form, the Complainant outlined that he did not receive wages for a ‘week worked in hand’. With the Respondent’s agreement, I have added a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 for the purposes of inquiring into this complaint.
During the hearing Mr Butler was requested to submit two payslips to the WRC by a specified date. These payslips were duly provided and copied by Mr Butler to the Complainant. The Complainant asked if he could submit a bank statement dating to 2015. This request was acceded to, and the Complainant was asked to submit same by COB on 21st January 2026, however, this document was not received by the WRC. The Complainant did not contact the WRC to say he had any difficulty in obtaining/providing same.
In coming to my decision, I have taken account of the relevant evidence and written submissions before me.
Background:
The Complainant contends he is owed payment for 3 days annual leave; a week’s wages for a week worked in hand; and 3 days sick pay. The Respondent submits the Complainant received all his annual leave; that he did not work a week in hand as described by the Complainant; and he was paid for 2 days sick leave taken in 2025. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 18th May 2015. He was not paid for the first week of work until the 2nd or 3rd week of his employment. He resigned from his employment with the Respondent on 3rd September 2025. The Complainant outlined that he is owed a week in hand, but he has not received this payment, despite being told by Mr Behan that he would receive same in his final pay.
The Complainant worked 3 x 12-hour shifts weekly. He outlined to the hearing that he is due payment for 3 days annual leave accrued but not taken on cessation of employment. He was told by the Respondent that he was entitled to this annual leave when he applied for it and then he was told he was not entitled to it when he tendered his resignation. The Complainant confirmed to the hearing that he received his full annual leave entitlement for 2024 (he took 13.65 days x 12 hours pay), and that his claim relates to annual leave due for 2025 only.
The Complainant outlined he took 2 days sick leave in 2025, and he was paid in full during this absence. However, he contends he is entitled to 5 days sick pay under the Sick Leave Act, 2022 and therefore he is entitled to be paid for the 3 days sick leave he had not taken on termination of his employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Mr Butler told the hearing there is no practice of paying a week in hand. Rather on commencement of employment an employee is paid in the second week of their employment for the first week of work. Mr Butler opened payslips to the hearing showing how payments are made.
The Complainant was authorised to take 3 days annual leave in September 2025, but then he resigned. As he had already taken all annual leave accrued, he was not entitled to holiday cesser pay.
The Complainant took 2 days statutory sick leave in 2025, he is therefore not entitled to payment in lieu of 3 days statutory sick pay on termination of employment.
Ms Hickey and Mr Behan gave evidence that there is no practice in the company of working a week in hand as described by the Complainant. Mr Behan submitted he did not tell the Complainant that he was entitled to an extra week’s wages on termination of employment in lieu of a week in hand. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00075199-001 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 (“the 1997 Act”)
Relevant Law
Section 19 of the 1997 Act provides:
“Subject to the First Schedule . . . an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this Act referred to as “annual leave”) equal to—
(a) 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment) . . .
(6) References in this section to a working week shall be construed as references to the number of days that the employee concerned usually works in a week.”
Section 23 of the 1997 Act provides:
“(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. (b) In this subsection— "relevant period" means— (i) in relation to a cessation of employment of an employee to whom subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 20 applies, the current leave year, (ii) in relation to a cessation of employment of an employee to whom subparagraph (ii) of the said paragraph (c) applies, that occurs during the first 6 months of the current leave year— (I) the current leave year, and (II) the leave year immediately preceding the current leave year, (iii) in relation to a cessation of employment of an employee to whom subparagraph (iii) of the said paragraph (c) applies, that occurs during the first 12 months of the period of 15 months referred to in the said subparagraph (iii) — (I) the current leave year, and (II) the leave year immediately preceding the current leave year, or (iv) in relation to a cessation of employment of an employee to whom subparagraph (iii) of the said paragraph (c) applies that occurs during the final 3 months of the period of 15 months referred to in the said subparagraph (iii) — (I) the current leave year, and (II) the 2 leave years immediately preceding the current leave year.”
Findings
Section 2(1) of the 1997 Act provides that a ‘leave year’ means a year beginning on 1st April. The Complainant referred his claim under the 1997 Act to the WRC on 5th September 2025. By application of the time limit provided for at s. 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, the cognisable period for the purpose of this complaint is confined to the 6-month period ending on the date on which the complaint was presented to the WRC, therefore, the cognisable period covered by the claim is the 6-month period from 6th March 2025 until 5th September 2025. As this period straddles 2 leave years, the annual leave entitlements for the leave years 2024 and 2025 are relevant to this complaint.
The Complainant works 3 x 12 hour shifts each week. Therefore, he is entitled to statutory leave of 12 days (paid at 12 hours per leave day) for each annual leave year. It was common case the Complainant took 13.65 days annual leave between January 2024 and December 2024. The Complainant contends he took 8 days annual leave (paid at 12 hours) between January 2025 and his resignation on 3rd September 2025, whereas the Respondent submits the Complainant took 10 days annual leave (paid at 12 hours) between January 2025 and the date of resignation. Neither party could give evidence on the actual dates leave was taken.
I calculate the Complainant is entitled to 17.1 days statutory annual leave between 1st April 2024 and his resignation on 3rd September 2025. It was common case the Complainant received no less than 21.65 days annual leave (paid at 12 hours per day) between January 2024 and September 2025, therefore, I am satisfied the Complainant received all statutory annual leave due to him on the date of his resignation. Accordingly, I find this complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00075199-002 - Complaint under the Sick Leave Act, 2022 (“the 2022 Act”)
Relevant Law
Section 2 (1) of the 2022 Act provides:
“statutory sick leave day” has the meaning given to it by section 5” and “statutory sick leave payment” has the meaning given to it by section 7.”
Section 5 of the 2022 Act provides:
“(1) Subject to this Act, an employee shall, in respect of a day on which he or she would ordinarily work but is incapable of doing so due to illness or injury (in this Act referred to as a “statutory sick leave day”), be entitled to statutory sick leave. (2) An employee shall be entitled to up to and including 3 [now 5] statutory sick leave days in a year, or such number of statutory sick leave days as may stand specified from time to time by order of the Minister under section 6 . . . ”
Findings
At the end of the hearing, the Complainant submitted that he misunderstood the provisions of the 2022 Act. He thought he was entitled to 5 days statutory sick leave and that he was entitled to be paid in lieu of any sick leave not taken on termination of employment.
It was common case the Complainant was only certified sick for 2 days in 2025 and that he took 2 days statutory sick leave in 2025. Therefore, I find this complaint under the 2022 Act is not well-founded.
CA-00075199-003 - Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (“the 1991 Act”)
Relevant Law
Section 5(1) of the 1991 Act provides:
“An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee . . . ”
Section 5(6) of the 1991 Act provides:
“Where— (a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or (b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee, then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion”.
In Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55, the High Court outlined that when considering a complaint under the 1991 Act, it must first be established the wages which were properly payable before considering whether a deduction had been made.
Findings
The Complainant outlined that he was paid either in week 2 or week 3 for the first week of his employment with the Respondent in 2015. He contends he was told he would receive an extra week’s wages on termination of employment for the week worked in hand. The Respondent submits that it is not the company practice to work a week in hand in the manner outlined by the Complainant. Rather an employee works a week, and they are paid for that week on the Thursday of the following week.
The Respondent opened payslips to the hearing (copies of which were submitted to the WRC and the Complainant after the hearing). The Complainant resigned his employment on 3rd September 2025. I am satisfied that on this date he was paid wages (36 hours pay) for the week preceding. I am also satisfied that on 10th September 2025, he was paid wages (36 hours) for the last week he worked for the Respondent. The Complainant provided no evidence that he waited until week 3 to be paid his first week of wages earned in 2015. Accordingly, I find the Complainant received all wages properly payable to him. Accordingly, I find the Respondent has not contravened the 1991 Act. |
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-00075199-001 I decide this complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00075199-002 I decide this complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00075199-003 I decide this complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 27-01-2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
Key Words:
Annual Leave. Sick leave. A ‘week in hand’. |