Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kieran  Battles

Muiriosa Foundation

Representatives

Garry Buckley Forsa

Adrian Twomey Jacob and Twomey Solicitors LLP

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-00072384-001

12/06/2025

The Respondent company is engaged in the provision of person-centred services to autistic individuals and people with intellectual disabilities at 35 locations in the Midlands.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 23 September 2023. He was employed as a Support Worker, normally working 72 hours per fortnight. The Complainant resigned from his employment with the Respondent on 21 October 2025.

A Complaint Form was received by the WRC on 12 June 2025.  The Complainant submitted a complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time act, 1997.

The complaint was the subject of two WRC hearings, the first on 5 February 2026, the second on 12 May 2026.  The first hearing was adjourned due to the non-attendance of the Complainant, who had emailed the WRC on the morning of the hearing, stating he was sick.

At the outset of the second hearing on 12 May 2026, the Complainant clarified that his complaint was in relation to his breaks.

The Complainant gave evidence on Oath at the hearing.

The Complainant stated that he looked after three people in a house within a residential centre. Due to the nature of the work, he was required to stay in the house; he did not get breaks, nor were there other supports in the house. He worked from 8.00 am until 9.00 pm, to a total of 72 hours a fortnight. His role was to support the residents, for example in assisting them get out of bed, showering, dressing etc. He was involved in preparing lunches and giving medication.

The Complainant stated that he could eat meals but this was with the residents and did not equate to a break.

In response to questions put to him in cross examination, the Complainant stated that the ratio of staff to residents was one to one.  He said he did not, using his definition, get breaks. He agreed he did get time to stop and eat, but the time could vary from five minutes one day to five or ten minutes another day.

When asked if he had ever raised a grievance with his employer about breaks, he said he had not.

He stated that he had gone to a shop on occasion but this only took a very short time, less than two minutes there and back. He did smoke five or six cigarettes a day while at work but he did this just outside the house where he could still watch the residents.

The Complainant stated that he typically ate meals twice a day, but this was not a break, he would finish his meal in five or ten minutes and he ate at the same table as the residents.  The Complainantstated that for two years he was unaware that there was a break room in the house for staff and he only once saw colleague eat a meal in this break room.

The Complainant did not agree with the assertion put to him that because the ratio of staff to residents was one-to-one it was possible for staff to take breaks. He said that some residents needed two staff to support them at certain times.

The Respondent provided a detailed written submission.

The Respondent denies that there was any breach of the provisions of the 1997 Act.

In the submission the Respondent put forward that as the complaint was received by the WRC on 12 June 2025, the cognisable period is that between 13 December 2024 and 12 June 2025.  The Complainant was on paid special leave from 3 March 2025 to 10 June 2025.  This special leave was preceded by certified sick leave from 18 to 25 February 2025 and followed by annual leave that ended on 23 June 2025. The Respondent submits that that being the case, there cannot have been any breach of the provisions of the 1977 Act, in relation to that period.

In light of the above, the Respondent submits that the period for consideration in this case is the two-month window between 13 December 2024 and the 17 February 2025.

Ms Rosanna Walsh gave evidence on Affirmation at the hearing.

The witness stated that she has worked for the Respondent since 2008. At the relevant time she was “Person in Charge” with responsibility that the location met its objectives and provided the correct care to the residents.

The witness stated that it was not correct to say that staff did not get breaks; that there is a 15-minute grace period and normally a later break for 30 minutes. During breaks staff can go to the local shops. The ratio of staff to residents allows for flexibility.

The witness stated that there is a room in the house [in which the Complainant had worked] which contains a kitchen, if a staff member wishes to take a meal, but normally staff eat with the residents.

Regarding the cigarette breaks taken by the Complainant, the witness stated that these were normally 10-minute breaks and that he took about five or six of them a day.

In conclusion, the Respondent stated that the Complainant had never raised a grievance about an absence of breaks while he was employed by the Respondent. In his own evidence he said he took cigarette breaks and that he got breaks to eat his meals.

The Respondent submits that it was clear from the evidence given by Ms Walsh, that the Complainant took many breaks and there was no prohibition on staff taking breaks.

Section 12 of the 1997 Act states:

Rests and intervals at work.

12.— (1) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes.

(2) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 6 hours without allowing him or her a break of at least 30 minutes; such a break may include the break referred to in subsection (1).

(3) The Minister may by regulations provide, as respects a specified class or classes of employee, that the minimum duration of the break to be allowed to such an employee under subsection (2) shall be more than 30 minutes (but not more than 1 hour).

(4) A break allowed to an employee at the end of the working day shall not be regarded as satisfying the requirement contained in subsection (1) or (2).

The Code of Practice on Compensatory Rest Periods states:

Appropriate Protection

1.       If for reasons that can be objectively justified, it is not possible for an employer to ensure that an employee has available to himself or herself the equivalent rest period or break set out in section 6(2) of the 1997 Act, the employer must make such arrangements as respects the employee’s conditions of employment as will compensate the employee.

While neither “arrangements as respects the employee’s conditions of employment as will compensate the employee” nor “appropriate protection” are defined in, respectively, the Act and the Directive the Act specifies that these concepts do not include:

i) the granting of monetary compensation to the employee, or

ii) the provision of any other material benefit to the employee, other than the provision of such a benefit as will improve the physical conditions under which the employee works or the amenities or services available to the employee while he or she is at work.

A common-sense approach should be adopted by employers and employees in such situations which takes account of the circumstances existing in the employment and has regard to the safety, health and wellbeing of employees. It would be desirable that employers and employees and/or their representatives agree appropriate protection measures as respects an employee’s conditions of employment.

While it is not feasible to define such appropriate protection/conditions of employment measures, the concept might include measures which provide for, in addition to normal health and safety requirements:

i) enhanced environmental conditions to accommodate regular long periods of attendance at work,

ii) refreshment facilities, recreational and reading material

ii) appropriate facilities/amenities such as television, radio and music

iv) alleviating monotonous work or isolation

v) transport to and from work where appropriate.

In Stasaitis v Noonan Services Group Ltd [2014] IEHC 199, the issue of compensatory rest periods was considered by the High Court. The case concerned a security guard who is required to remain in a security hut for the duration of his eight-hour shifts without any scheduled rest breaks. He was allowed to take as many breaks as he wanted during periods of inactivity and it was accepted that there were such periods during his shift. He was provided with kitchen facilities and an area in the hut to take such breaks. The Court held that the requirement to provide compensatory rest periods had been complied with. Kearns P referred to the fact that kitchen facilities were provided and an area where breaks could be taken as the security man wanted during periods of inactivity.  The Court did not accept the argument that employee had not received compensatory breaks as his employer had not specified fix breaks during his shift commenting that brakes of a fixed duration could have the effect of reducing the employees’ periods of actual rest period.

Taking all of the above into consideration, I am satisfied that the Complainant had time when he was not supporting residents, when he could have taken his breaks; his cigarette breaks support this contention.  The availability of a rest room for staff also allowed a space (and time) for him to take a break as required by the Act. If this matter had been of such concern to the Complainant he could and indeed should have, initiated a grievance under the Respondent’s Grievance Policy.

Taking all the above into account I find there was no breach of the 1997 Act in this instance.

The complaint is not well founded.