DWT2654

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00049237 (CA-00060469-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court on the 09th December 2024.

A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 13th of January 2026.

The following is the Labour Court's Decision:

DECISION:

1. Background

This is an appeal by Maxol Millmount Service Station Maxol Millmount against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00049237 CA-00060469-001) in a complaint made by Jing Quan Xiao under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (“the Act”). The complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission on 11 December 2023. The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was well founded by decision dated 5 November 2024.

This case is linked to another appeal relating to the same employee [DWT2655] which was heard by the Court on the same day.  The Court spent an amount of time at the outset of the hearing clarifying the nature of the complaint in relation to a contravention of section 14 of the Act.  No witness testimony was proffered by either party at the hearing. Both parties confirmed that they were provided with an opportunity to provide all relevant evidence to the Court at the hearing.

For ease of reading, the parties are referred to in this Decision as they were at first instance. Hence, Jing Quan Xiao is referred to as ‘the Complainant’ and Maxol Millmount Service Station Maxol Millmount is referred to as ‘the Respondent’.

2. Summary of Complainant’s Submission

The Complainant submits that the Respondent breached the Act as he was not paid a Sunday premium on seven occasions in the period between 17 July 2023 and 11 December 2023. The Complainant contends that a Sunday premium of 10c per hour is below the average rate for the sector in which the employee works.

3. Summary of Respondent’s Submission

The Respondent accepts that for a period the Complainant was not paid a premium when he worked on Sundays. The Respondent was the subject of a WRC inspection in and around July 2023.  As a result of that inspection the Respondent was required to address several issues, including that payment of Sunday premia was clearly documented. Following the inspection the Respondent implemented a premium of 10c per hour for hours worked on a Sunday, which it contends is fair and reasonable for its business. No collective agreement applies to the employment. It made a lump sum payment to the Complainant and backdated all monies owed to him.

4. The Relevant Law

Section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 sets outs provision relating to Sunday work as follows:

14.—(1) An employee who is required to work on a Sunday (and the fact of his or her having to work on that day has not otherwise been taken account of in the determination of his or her pay) shall be compensated by his or her employer for being required so to work by the following means, namely—

(a) by the payment to the employee of an allowance of such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(b) by otherwise increasing the employee’s rate of pay by such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(c) by granting the employee such paid time off from work as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(d) by a combination of two or more of the means referred to in the preceding paragraphs.

5. Deliberation

Section 14 of the Act sets out statutory rights for employees in respect of Sunday work. An employee who is required to work on a Sunday is entitled, having regard to all the circumstances, to be compensated by payment of a reasonable allowance, or by an increase in the employee’s rate of pay by a reasonable amount, or by granting the employee reasonable paid time off from work, or by a combination of two or more of the above means.

Following a break during the hearing, the Complainant’s representative confirmed to the Court that the Respondent paid the shortfall in monies due to the Complainant for working on Sundays in December 2023, however, it contends that the payment did not take account of payments due on seven occasions during the cognisable period. For its part, the Respondent accepted that a contravention of the Act occurred as it did not pay the Complainant on six occasions in the relevant period.

It follows that the complaint is well founded.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent contravened the Act when it failed to pay the Complainant a Sunday premium when he worked on Sundays during the cognisable period.

The Court requires the Respondent to pay the Complainant a compensation award of €1,000 which it considers to be just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.  The Court considers that this award is appropriate having regard to the fact that the Complainant did not receive his statutory entitlement and was required to engage in proceedings to secure his statutory entitlement.

6. Finding

For the reasons set out above, the Court finds the complaint is well founded.

The Court requires the Respondent to pay the Complainant a compensation award of €1,000.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
AL	______________________
16 January 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.