ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057875
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Pricila Konde | Office Holdings |
Representatives |
| Sheila Spokes A&L Goodbody LLP |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18A of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00070254-001 | 25/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00070254-002 | 25/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00070254-003 | 25/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/03/2026 and08/06/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 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 initial hearing of this matter took place on 10 March 2026 when both complaints referred under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 were heard. On that day, I also requested that the Complainant file a supplemental submission by no later than 31 March 2026 to address fundamental matters in relation to the complaint under the Employment Equality Act (CA-00070254-002), namely: (i) when the alleged incidents outlined by her in the WRC complaint form occurred; (ii) the parties involved in the alleged incidents; (iii) any comparators she alleged were treated or would have been treated more favourably than her; and (iv) what connection, if any, the allegations had to the claim of discrimination.
Despite the Respondent facilitating extended deadlines of 17 April 2026 and 1 May 2026 to afford the Complainant every opportunity to comply with my request of 10 March 2026, no submission was filed in advance of the second hearing day of 8 June 2026 nor did the Complainant attend on the day of the resumed hearing to give evidence in relation to the complaint made under the Employment Equality Act.
Background:
The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent as a Sales Assistant on 22 September 2023. She was contracted to work four hours per week. The Complainant resigned her employment by email dated 3 March 2025. In her complaint form to the WRC submitted on 25 March 2025, she stated that she was discriminated against by the Respondent in relation to the allocation of working hours even though the Respondent provided her with hours based on her limited availability. She also stated that she was not placed on the appropriate band of hours as of 17 December 2024 and was not paid for her accrued annual leave. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00070254-001: The Complainant stated that, since December 2024, her working hours had been unfairly reduced to just four hours per week, despite previously being scheduled for significantly more hours and having requested additional hours. CA-00070254-002: The Complainant did not attend the resumed hearing on 8 June 2026 to give evidence in relation to this complaint. CA-00070254-003: In her complaint form, the Complainant asserted that she had not been paid for accrued untaken annual leave. The Complainant however accepted that she was paid her outstanding accrued annual leave in the sum of €623.57, equating to 46.19 hours in her final payslip after her employment ended on 29 March 2025. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00070254-001: The Respondent stated that the Complainant had not made a request in writing to be placed on a banded hours contract. CA-00070254-002: As the Complainant did not attend the resumed hearing on 8 June 2026 to give evidence in relation to this complaint, the Respondent did not present any evidence. CA-00070254-003: The Respondent stated that the Complainant was paid all of her outstanding accrued annual leave entitlement in the sum of €623.57, equating to 46.19 hours in her final payslip after her employment ended on 29 March 2025, |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00070254-001: The Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 states as follows: 18A.—(1) Where an employee’s contract of employment or statement of terms of employment does not reflect the number of hours worked per week by an employee over a reference period, the employee shall be entitled to be placed in a band of weekly working hours specified in the Table to this section. (2) In accordance with subsection (1), where an employee believes that he or she is entitled to be placed in a band of weekly working hours, he or she shall inform the employer and request, in writing, to be so placed. (3) The employee shall be placed by the employer in a band of weekly working hours from a date that is not greater than 4 weeks from the date the employee made the request under subsection (2). (4) The band of weekly working hours on which the employee is entitled to be placed shall be determined by the employer on the basis of the average number of hours worked by that employee per week during the reference period. (5) An employer may refuse to place an employee on the band requested— (a) where there is no evidence to support the claim in relation to the hours worked in the reference period, (b) where there has been significant adverse changes to the business, profession or occupation carried on by the employer during or after the reference period, (c) in circumstances to which section 5 applies, or (d) where the average of the hours worked by the employee during the reference period were affected by a temporary situation that no longer exists. (6) This section shall not apply to banded hour arrangements which have been entered into by agreement following collective bargaining. (7) An employee placed on a band of weekly working hours shall work hours the average of which shall fall within that band for a period of not less than 12 months following that placement. (8) Where an employee believes that his or her employer has failed to place the employee in a band of weekly working hours in accordance with subsection (3), having been requested to do so under subsection (2) or unreasonably refused a request to be placed on a band of weekly working hours, the employee may make a complaint in accordance with Part 4 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. (9) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a failure to comply with this section shall do one or more of the following, namely— (a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded, and (b) where the decision is that the complaint was well founded, require the employer to comply with this section and place the employee on the appropriate band of hours. (10) Notwithstanding section 27(3)(c), a decision in accordance with subsection (9)(b) shall not order an employer to pay compensation to the employee for the employer’s failure to comply with this section.” Findings: Section 18A(2) of the 1997 Act above puts the onus on an employee to submit a request in writing to their employer to place him or her on a banded hours contract. Under subsections (2)-(4), the request should state the band of hours on which the employee wishes to be placed, and their entitlement to be placed on the band in question, which is based on the average number of hours worked by per week in the 12 months immediately before the request. As no such request was made by the Complainant in the instant case under section 18A(2), the Respondent did not fail or unreasonably refuse to place the Complainant on a banded hours contract. Accordingly, the complaint is not well founded. CA-00070254-002: As the Complainant did not attend the resumed hearing on 8 June 2026 to give evidence in relation to her complaint, I find that she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and was therefore not discriminated against. CA-00070254-003: In relation to annual leave entitlements, the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 states: 19.—(1) Subject to the First Schedule (which contains transitional provisions in respect of the leave years 1996 to 1998), 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), (b) one-third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours, or (c) 8 per cent. of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks): Provided that if more than one of the preceding paragraphs is applicable in the case concerned and the period of annual leave of the employee, determined in accordance with each of those paragraphs, is not identical, the annual leave to which the employee shall be entitled shall be equal to whichever of those periods is the greater Findings: In her complaint form, the Complainant asserted that she had not been paid for accrued untaken annual leave. Given that that the Complainant accepted at the hearing on 10 March 2026 that she was paid all of her outstanding accrued annual leave entitlement in the sum of €623.57, equating to 46.19 hours, in her final payslip after her employment ended on 29 March 2025, I find that this complaint is not well founded. |
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 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-00070254-001: The complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above. CA-00070254-002: As the Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, I find that she was not discriminated against. CA-00070254-003: The complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above. |
Dated: 08/07/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|