ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00063644

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Dean Smith	Aircool Refrigeration And Plumbing Services Limited

Representatives

David Kearney

HR Brief Limited

Complaints:

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-00077132-002	04/11/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012	CA-00077132-003	04/11/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000	CA-00077132-004	04/11/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/06/2026

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 dispute of any perceived contravention by the Employer of any of the Acts (Statutes) contained in Schedule 5 or 6 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 relevant documentation.

In this instance, the Complainant has made several complaints including:

A contravention under Section 21of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 of the Act which concerns entitlement in respect of public holidays. This provides that an employee shall, in respect of a public holiday, be entitled to whichever one of the following his or her employer determines, namely—

(a) a paid day off on that day,

(b) a paid day off within a month of that day,

(d) an additional day’s pay:

Provided that if the day on which the public holiday falls is a day on which the employee would, apart from this subsection, be entitled to a paid day off this subsection shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted therefrom.

A further complaint seeks redress pursuant to Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 (SI 36 of 2012) which imposes upper limits in working time for persons performing mobile road transport. In general terms Regulation 18 provides:

A mobile worker (or, if under 18, a parent/guardian with consent) may make a complaint where the employer has breached certain working time obligations. A trade union may also make the complaint with the worker's consent.

Following an amendment in 2015, complaints may relate to breaches of Regulations 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12, including working time limits, breaks, rest requirements, notification obligations and employer record-keeping obligations.

Regulation 18 creates the enforcement mechanism for workers to seek redress when an employer breaches the road transport working time rules.

Lastly the Complainant has brought a complaint stating that he has not received the National Minimum Rate of Pay. The National Minimum Wage Act of 2000 sets out that it is necessary for an individual seeking to assert an entitlement or complaint under this Act must before issuing a complaint seek a statement of earnings.

Section 24(2) The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission shall not entertain a dispute in relation to an employee’s entitlements under this Act and, accordingly, shall not refer the dispute to an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015]—

(a) unless the employee—

(i) has obtained under section 23 a statement of his or her average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period,

Background:

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

In response to 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), I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice. I have additionally informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and in the event that there is a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to a complaint then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Oath/Affirmation as appropriate. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The Specific Details of the complaints are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 4th of November 2025.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant relied on and elaborated on the submission he had set out in his workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had provided me with a few documents in advance of the hearing which he referred to in his evidence.

There is no doubt that the range of issues that the Complainant has with this Employer extends well beyond the issues raised but I was confined to dealing with the complaints raised in this complaint form.

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 had full representation at this hearing. The Respondent entity was represented in person by a Mr Walsh who did not give evidence.

I was provided with a comprehensive submission on the 29th of May 2026.

The Respondent has asserted that it has no case to answer in connection with any of the three complaints presented. The Respondent was not inclined to discuss and or otherwise defend any other issues which might have come up in the course of the Complainant’s evidence, and which were not formally before the Adjudicator today. I was bound to acquiesce to the position so taken.

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.

Findings and Conclusions:

Both parties agreed that the Complainant had received the Public Holiday entitlements that fell due to be paid in the course of the employment.

The Complainant agreed that he was not an Employee engaged to perform mobile road transport activities and therefore the European Directive had no application to his employment.

The Complainant had failed to make the required request from his Employer concerning a statement of earnings for a particular pay period.

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 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00077132-002 The complaint herein is not well founded and fails

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012

CA-00077132-003 - The complaint herein is not well founded and fails

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00077132-004 – The complaint herein is not well founded and fails

Dated: 23rd July 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Key Words: