ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00061988
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ankit Rawat | YSS Pvt Ltd |
Representatives | John J. Morrissey BL Padraig Murphy Solicitor | Hugh Hegarty Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00074129-001 | 06/08/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00074129-002 | 06/08/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 | CA-00074129-003 | 06/08/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 | CA-00074129-006 | 06/08/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00074129-007 | 06/08/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00074129-008 | 06/08/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/06/2026
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 or a dispute 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 the relevant documentation being relied upon.
In this instance, the Complainant has a number of complaints of the Employer having contravened Acts contained in Schedule 5 above referred to. This includes an alleged contravention of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, namely:
A contravention of Section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 which provides for compensation for working on a Sunday and further provides for a number of ways in which the compensation can be calculated including the payment of an allowance, an increased rate of pay or paid time in lieu.
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.
The Complainant herein has also referred a matter for adjudication as provided for under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 in circumstances where a Contract of Service has commenced and where the said Employee employed by an Employer is entitled to have been provided (within two months of the commencement of the employee’s employment with the employer) with a Statement of certain Terms of the employment.
The said terms are specified in Section 3 of the 1994 Act and include items such as names, addresses and place of work. There should also be a job title and a description of the nature of the work. The start date and the nature/duration of the Contract should be included in the statement as well as the terms of the remuneration. This statement should be dated and signed with copies retained by both parties. The Complainant alleges that he did not receive the terms and conditions laid down in a relevant Employment Regulation Order (ERO).
Section 3 of the 1994 Act states that
(1) An employer shall, not later than one monthafter the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment, including a reference to any registered employment agreement or employment regulation order which applies to the employee and confirmation of where the employee may obtain a copy of such agreement or order.
It is noted that Employment Regulation Orders (EROs) are currently in place in respect of the Contract Cleaning and Security Industries. ERO's prescribe minimum pay rates and other terms for employees working in those industries. The WRC notes that this specific complaint should be selected for issues prescribed in EROs other than those relating to pay and hours of work such as statements of terms, rosters, certificates of service, sick pay schemes, minimum notice, redundancy notifications, disclosure of information, facilities for employees, protection clothing, death-in-service and other benefits, training, uniform provision, procedures, etc. Separate complaint options for pay and hours of work issues are available in the Pay and Hours of Work general complaint areas respectively.
In circumstances where I consider the complaint to be well founded, I may require a Statement of Terms be provided. In addition, I am entitled to direct a payment of compensation up to the value of four weeks remuneration such that is just and equitable in all the circumstances.
The Complainant has brought further and separate complaints concerning his hours of work and the payment of a Personal Attack Benefit. The Complainant asserts that the Employment Regulation Order governing the security industry is directly applicable to this workplace. Employment Regulation Orders (EROs) prescribe, among other matters, minimum pay rates for employees working in certain sectors or industries. The Complainant asserts that the Employer has contravened elements of the relevant ERO.
Section 45 (A) of the Industrial Relations Act sets out the relief which can be sought where such a contravention has been found to exist.
S.45 (A). — A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of an employment regulation order in relation to a worker 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,
(b) require the employer to comply with the employment regulation order, or
(c) require the employer to pay to the worker compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the worker’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
The Complainant withdrew three other complaints. Two concerned the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act of 2005 and the last complaint concerned a complaint of discrimination under the Employment Equality Act of 1988.
Background:
This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing. 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 statements or evidence is an offence. The specific details of the complaints made are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 6th of August 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date. The cognisable period is from the 7th of February 2025 to the 6th of August 2025.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant had full legal representation at the hearing. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. I was provided with a comprehensive submission dated the 21st of May 2025. The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form. I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case and attached to the submissions. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. The Complainant withdrew a number of matters which came before me. The balance of the issues were dealt with on the basis of the evidence heard, the documents provided and the inquiry made. 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. The Complainant must establish facts which tend to disclose that there is a reasonable cause of action or that there appears to have been a contravention of a Statute or Statutes. 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 did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent representative was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 9th of April 2026 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Respondent on the 26th ofNovember 2025 when the Respondent representative came on record. I contacted the said representative on the morning of the hearing, but they did not come back to me to confirm they had instruction or otherwise. No attempt was made to postpone the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully listened to the evidence adduced by the Complainant herein together with the legal submission provided by his representative. The Complainant came to work with the Respondent entity in December of 2023. The Complainant was engaged as a security guard. The Complainant was not provided with a Contract of Employment until in and around January 2025 some thirteen months after the commencement of his employment. This unacceptable delay placed the Complainant at a distinct disadvantage as he did not know the terms and conditions of his employment until the Contract was formally given to him. The Contract highlighted certain entitlements that the Complainant had not been aware of. For example, the Complainant was unable to decern (prior to getting the Contract) that he had not been receiving a Sunday Premium for working on Sundays. The Complainant also had no idea that an ERO applied to the type of work that he was doing. Despite this, the Complainant continued to work with the Respondent. As I understand it, the Complainant provided general security at a shopping mall in the Clondalkin area. He got on well and enjoyed his work. It is an unfortunate fact that on or about the 22nd of May 2025 the Complainant was injured in the course of his employment as a security guard when he was stabbed by a third party. The Complainant was brought to hospital to have his injuries assessed and in consequence of the foregoing the Complainant was out sick for four weeks. It is noted that this employment is governed by S.I. No. 319/2024 - Employment Regulation Order (Security Industry Joint Labour Committee) 2024 This legislation specifically provides for a period of payment or benefit for any Employee subject to an attack in the course of employment. This reads as follows:
The Complainant returned to the workplace on or about the 19th of June 2025. The Complainant was out of work for four weeks and it is clear from the Complainant’s wage slips for the four week period that the Complainant was not paid his basic pay for the four weeks absence. The Complainant was paid for a 27-hour week and not for a 40-hour week to which he was entitled. The Complainant feels very strongly that his Employer had not, during the course of the employment, provided adequate protection and support and that the injury he sustained was avoidable. He formed the view that the Respondent Employer was liable. The Complainant consulted a Solicitor and initiated a personal injury claim against the Employer who is insured to meet claims for accidents and incidents in the workplace. The Complainant has asserted that immediately after the Respondent was served with the Personal Injury papers the relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant changed. Ultimately the Complainant left his employment in August of 2025. In addition to the above the Complainant is further relying on S.I. No. 319/2024 - Employment Regulation Order (Security Industry Joint Labour Committee) 2024 at section
The Complaint says that he was not always given a rest period of not less than 11 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours that he as an employee worked for the employer. The evidence is that this happened 30 times in the six-month period before the complaint form issued. The Complainant says that the Employer failed to ensure that the Complainant did not work for a period of more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes. Also, that the employer failed to not require him to work for a period of more than 6 hours without allowing him a break of at least 30 minutes. Lastly he gave evidence that the Employer failed to ensure that the employee would have, in each period of 7 days, a rest period of at least 24 consecutive hours. The evidence given by the Complainant was that this happened at least 3 times in the six-month period prior to the complaint form issuing.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00074129-001 – I am finding as a matter of fact that the Respondent failed to make a reference to the registered employment agreement or employment regulation order which applies to the employee and confirmation of where the employee may obtain a copy of such agreement or order. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00074129-002 – I am finding as a matter of fact that the Employer did not pay to the Complainant a Sunday premium in the six-month period prior to the issuing of the complaint form. The loss herein is calculated at €350.00 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 CA-00074129-003 – This complaint was withdrawn Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 CA-00074129-006 – This complaint was withdrawn Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 CA-00074129-007 – This complaint was withdrawn Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 CA-00074129-008 – I am satisfied that the Employer herein not only failed to direct the Complainant to a relevant ERO but also failed to give the Complainant the benefit of the bespoke terms of the said ERO. I have set out the different contraventions above. |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00074129-001 – The complaint herein well founded, and I direct that the Employer pay to the Employee compensation in the amount of two weeks pay which I calculate at €1,280.00 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00074129-002 – The complaint herein is well founded and I direct that the Employer pay to the Complainant the sum of €350.00 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 CA-00074129-003 - This complaint was withdrawn Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 CA-00074129-006 - This complaint was withdrawn Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 CA-00074129-007 - This complaint was withdrawn Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 CA-00074129-008 – This complaint is well founded and I require that the Employer pay to the worker/Complainant compensation in the amount of €3,400.00 which I consider to be just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances.
|
Dated: 22nd of July 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|