ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00058045

Parties:

Complaints:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  30/03/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

Procedure:

1. In accordance with section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015 and section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, these complaints were assigned to me by the Director General. The hearing commenced on Monday, March 30th 2026, having been adjourned twice, on October 24th 2025 and February 3rd 2026.  The complainant, Mr James Keegan, was the only witness for his case and he attended the hearing with his father, Mr John Keegan.  He was represented by Mr James McEvoy of Work Matters Ireland.  Old Conna Golf Club was represented by Mr Owen Keany BL, instructed by Mr Peter Murphy of McInnes Dunne Murphy LLP.  Ms Jessica Grendon accompanied Mr Murphy.  The general manager of the golf club, Mr Eric Murrihy, gave evidence in response to Mr Keegan’s complaints.  Mr Murrihy was accompanied by the club secretary, Ms Noelle Ryan and the president, Mr Paul Meany.
2. While the parties are named in this decision, from here on, I will refer to Mr Keegan as “the complainant” and to Old Conna Golf Club as “the respondent.”

Background:

3. The complainant lives close to the respondent’s golf club in Bray, County Wicklow. At the hearing, I learned that the club has around 1,200 members and employs 21 staff.  The business is seasonal, with the winters being quieter than the summers.  As well as the golf course, this seasonality transfers to the business in the bar. 
4. The bar has five staff; two full-time bar tenders, one part-time bar tender and two part-time cleaners. The part-time bar tender also does some cleaning.  On January 24th 2018, the complainant commenced in the role of part-time bar tender and cleaner.  On the form he submitted to the WRC, he stated that he worked for 20 hours per week.  In his submission dated October 24th 2025, Mr McEvoy, on behalf of the complainant, said that, between September 2023 and September 2024, he worked an average of 29.5 hours per week.  I understand from the respondent’s submission that, during the summer of 2024, he worked an average of 35.3 hours per week and that, in the winter of 2024-2025, he worked an average of 22.54 hours per week.  His hourly rate of pay was €14.05.
5. These complaints were submitted to the WRC on April 1st 2025. On April 7th, the complainant commenced a period of absence due to work-related anxiety.  He resigned on February 10th 2026 and, on February 12th, he submitted a further five complaints, under the reference number ADJ-00066382.  All 12 complaints were considered on March 30th 2026.

Chronology of Events Leading to these Complaints:

6. Although he commenced as a part-time bar tender and cleaner in January 2018, in May 2023, coinciding with a change in management, the complainant was issued with a statement of his terms and conditions of employment. Under the heading, “Hours of Work,” this document states,

“The club operates a 7 day business between Monday and Sunday.  You will work such hours per day and such hours per week as will be determined by the business from time to time.”

7. In October 2023, Mr Eric Murrihy was appointed as the new general manager of the club. At a meeting with Mr Murrihy shortly after he joined the business, the complainant told him that he wanted a more regular roster and longer notice of when he was required to work.  In February 2024, the club president, Mr Paul Meany and the secretary, Ms Noelle Ryan, had one to one meetings with all the staff.  The complainant raised no issues about his terms and conditions of employment.  He told Mr Meany and Ms Ryan that the roster was organised more fairly under Mr Murrihy and that he was rostered for more hours. 
8. It is the complainant’s case that, in March 2024, he was informed by Mr Murrihy that he would be offered full-time work from April onwards. Mr Murrihy’s evidence is that he didn’t have such a conversation with the complainant because the club had two full-time bar tenders which is sufficient. Mr Murrihy’s position is that he told the complainant that he would get more hours during the summer months.
9. In May 2024, as part of annual staff reviews, Mr Murrihy had a meeting with the complainant. The complainant was satisfied with his roster.  The complainant claims that Mr Murrihy informed him that he was planning a re-structure and that he would be promoted to supervisor and that his contract would be re-negotiated and that he would get an increase in pay. 
10. One of the part-time cleaners had resigned in early 2024 and a replacement was hired. When the second cleaner resigned in July 2024, Mr Murrihy asked the complainant if he wanted to do more cleaning shifts.  He declined the offer of more hours and a new cleaner was recruited.  The complainant’s evidence is that he declined the offer of more hours because he thought that he had an offer of a full-time job.
11. From the complainant’s submission, it appears that he had a difficulty in July 2024 when he wanted a Saturday and Sunday off to attend his grandmother’s birthday party. The bar manager eventually arranged for him to have the time off, although with some inconvenience regarding him having to reimburse the person who covered his shift. 
12. On July 31st 2024, the complainant wrote to the club and addressed his letter “To Whom it May Concern.” The letter was to request pay for public holidays on which he wasn’t rostered and for a Sunday premium.  The letter was passed to Mr Murrihy by the payroll office.  Mr Murrihy replied on August 13th and explained that the complainant had worked on all the public holidays expect the first Monday in May, for which one day had been accrued.  Regarding the Sunday premium, Mr Murrihy referred to the provision in the complainant’s terms and conditions which states that his hourly rate includes a premium for working on Sundays.
13. In August 2024, the complainant was rostered for four closing shifts in one week, including on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. When he spoke about this to the assistant manager, one of his shifts was offered to another employee.  When the complainant objected to losing a shift, he was rostered back on.
14. The complainant had booked himself off for the weekend commencing on Friday, September 6th, but he was rostered on for the Friday. He wasn’t permitted to take the day off because the bar manager was on holidays and a group was booked into the bar.  He had to work from 9.00am until 2.00pm.
15. The evidence of Mr Murrihy is that, in September 2024, there were “rumblings” that the complainant wasn’t available to work certain days and that he didn’t want to work at weekends. On September 4th, Mr Murrihy met the complainant in the bar area of the club and told him that he needed to be more flexible and that he was required to cover for the holidays and time off of the two full-time bar tenders.
16. In his submission, the complainant said that in early September 2024, he began experiencing panic attacks and anxiety at work. He was absent for four weeks due to work-related stress.
17. The complainant’s submission contains an email sent to him on September 9th 2024, from Turas Nua, the employment activation service of the Department of Social Protection. The case worker in Turas Nua confirmed that she had received confirmation from the respondent that, since April 12th 2024, the complainant “has worked / will work 30 hours per week or more over 4 days.”
18. While he was absent, on September 27th 2024, the complainant had a meeting with the club president, Mr Meany, to discuss his concerns about his work situation. Mr Meany denied that the complainant had been offered a full-time position, despite the information provided on the email from Turas Nua.
19. On October 2nd 2024, the complainant had another meeting with Mr Meany. The club secretary, Ms Noelle Ryan also attended.  The complainant’s submission notes that he pointed out to Mr Meany and Ms Ryan that he was rostered for too many closing shifts, that his pay was unfair and his rights had not been acknowledged.  The complainant claims that the meeting ended with Mr Meany and Ms Ryan saying that they would arrange for him to have a meeting with someone from HR.  I understand that such a meeting did not occur.
20. In early 2025, changes were made to the catering service in the club and a franchise arrangement was agreed. In February, a vacancy was advertised for a food and beverage supervisor and the job was filled in March 2025.  Although he didn’t apply for the position, the complainant claims that he was promised this job.
21. On April 1st 2025, the complainant submitted these complaints to the WRC, and, on April 4th, he went absent when he was certified as suffering from work-related stress. He remained out of work until he resigned on February 10th 2026.
22. In accordance with s.41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, the timeframe for which I have jurisdiction to enquire into these complaints is the six months prior to the date on which they were submitted to the WRC. The cognizable period is therefore from September 31st 2024 to April 1st 2025. 

Summary of the Complainant’s Case:

CA-00070469-001:  Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

23. The complainant claims that he wasn’t provided with a statement of his terms and conditions of employment. At the hearing, Mr McEvoy submitted that there are deficits in the document given to the complainant in May 2023.  These deficits concern the failure to state “the nature or duration of the contract,” the normal weekly hours of work, pension arrangements, probation and overtime.

CA-00070469-002:  Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

24. The complainant claims that he is treated by the respondent as if he is employed on a zero hours contract, although the nature of his job is that his work is not genuinely casual. In his submission, he identified one shift in November 2024, seven shifts in January 2025 and one shift in February 2025 for which he was rostered that were cancelled.  As a result of the cancellations, the complainant claims that he was at a loss of 56 hours’ pay.

CA-00070469-003:  Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

25. The complainant claims that he wasn’t permitted to take breaks during the working day. In his evidence at the hearing, he said that the breaks situation improved in 2024 after Mr Murrihy took over responsibility for rostering.

CA-00070469-004:  Complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998

26. The complainant named four female employees who, he claims, are paid more than him. He believes that these employees were rostered for more hours compared to him.

CA-00070469-005:  Complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998

27. The complainant claims that, in February 2025, the respondent discriminated against him when he wasn’t invited to apply for the new role of food and beverage supervisor, and, when this role was filled by a female.

CA-00070469-006:  Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

28. The complainant claims that he was penalised by having his hours reduced when he raised issues in relation to his terms and conditions of employment. In his submission, he included a schedule of his weekly hours from March 11th until August 25th 2024, and then from October 7th 2024 until April 6th 2025.  He returned from four weeks’ sick leave on October 5th 2024.  The hours spanning the winter period are less than the hours worked between March and the end of August 2024.

CA-00070469-007:  Complaint under the Protection of Employees (Part-time Work) Act 2001

29. The complainant claims that he is treated less favourably compared to full-time groundsmen, who are paid double time for working on Sundays. It is the complainant’s case that he is no less experienced than his colleagues who work as groundsmen and that his work is of equal value.

Evidence of the Complainant:

30. Opening his evidence, the complainant agreed with Mr McEvoy that he received a contract on May 22nd 2023. A copy of this document was included in his book of documents for the hearing.
31. The complainant said that in January 2020, he raised concerns with members of the management team about the recruitment of a named cleaner. He referred to a meeting with the club president, Mr Paul Meany, on February 25th 2023, when he said that he complained that cleaning shifts were being allocated to female colleagues who were recruited after him.  He said that the cleaning jobs for which the two named females were hired were not advertised.  He said that he complained to Mr Meany that they were being rostered for more hours than him.  He said that the assistant bar manager used to tease him about this.
32. Referring to an email response on March 9th 2023 from Mr Meany which was included in his book of documents, the complainant said that he was advised to speak with the bar manager, who he reported to and who was responsible for rostering, to clarify his availability and his interest in working more hours. The complainant said that he had a good relationship with his manager and with the assistant manager.  While he didn’t indicate if he raised his concerns with his manager, he said that “nothing happened.” 
33. The complainant said that he was employed on a part-time basis and that his hours were not specified. In the summer, he said that he worked longer days, and he also worked more hours when the manager and the assistant manager were on holidays.
34. On October 2nd 2023, the complainant said that he had a meeting with the newly appointed general manager, Mr Eric Murrihy. He said that this was his first meeting with Mr Murrihy and he told him that he had issues with the rostering and a problem with what he referred to as his “zero hours contract.”  He said that Mr Murrihy took over the roster in early 2024 and that the cleaning roster was distributed fairly from then.  He named one of the cleaners who left and he said that he “got her hours.”  He said that his understanding is that this followed from a conversation between Mr Murrihy and the bar manager.
35. In February 2024, in a meeting with the club secretary, Ms Noelle Ryan, and the president, Mr Meany, the complainant said that he told them that the roster was being applied more fairly. He said that he was getting on with management.  He told Ms Ryan and Mr Meany that his pay was low and that he was concerned about public holiday pay and Sunday pay.  He knew that the ground staff were paid double time for Sundays.
36. In addition to his earnings from his job with the respondent, the complainant was in receipt of Job Seeker’s Allowance. In March 2024, he had a meeting with Turas Nua, which provides job activation services to the Department of Social Protection.  After this meeting, he said that he asked Mr Murrihy to send a letter to Turas Nua to state that he was a full-time employee.  He claims that Mr Murrihy told him that he would get full time hours at the beginning of April.  He signed off Job Seeker’s Allowance on April 17th, and throughout the summer of 2024, he said that he worked between 35 and 50 hours per week.  On July 31st, he wrote to the respondent and asked to be paid a Sunday premium and public holiday pay. 
37. In July 2024, the complainant said that the person who was in the role of a full-time cleaner resigned and her job was advertised. He said that his understanding was that he was a full-time employee and he didn’t need to apply for this job.
38. An email dated September 9th 2024 from Turas Nua to the complainant opens as follows:

“Hi James

Please find the details from our employer services confirming your full time hours.”

The email shows that the respondent had confirmed that the complainant had worked / will work 30 hours per week or more over four days.  The complainant said that he didn’t get a new contract as a result of this letter from Turas Nua.  His understanding from the email is that he was a full-time employee.  He said that a man who works in the pro-shop congratulated him on being full-time.  He said that the bar manager and the assistant manager told him that Mr Murrihy had said that he was full-time.  He said that, from then on, he was always rostered to work in the bar, except for one cleaning shift per week.

39. The complainant referred to a meeting he had with Mr Murrihy on September 3rd 2024. He claims that Mr Murrihy questioned his flexibility and loyalty and told him that, although he was under the impression that he was full-time, he was a part-time worker.  He claims that Mr Murrihy told him that he was entitled to one cleaning shift per week.  The complainant said that when he was at work the following day, he had a panic attack and went on sick leave for four weeks due to work-related stress.
40. While he was out sick, the complainant said that, at his request, he had two meetings with Ms Ryan and Mr Meany. He said that he sent them a breakdown of the meeting he had with Mr Murrihy that he claims caused him to take leave due to stress.  He said that Mr Meany told him that he would speak to Mr Murrihy and get back to him.  He said that he was promised a meeting with the HR manager when he got back to work.  When he returned from sick leave in October 2024, he said that two new people had been recruited.  The complainant named the two people, both of whom are female.
41. The complainant said that he was out sick again from April 7th 2025 due to panic attacks and anxiety. He said that he was “nervous about the complaint going in” (on April 1st 2025) and his doctor recommended that he stay out of work.  Asked by Mr McEvoy why he made a complaint to the WRC, the complainant said that he “got nowhere” when he raised the issues.  He said that the meeting with someone from HR never happened and that promises were not fulfilled.  He claims that the “threats made by Mr Murrihy did occur.”

Cross-examining of the Complainant by Mr Keany

42. The complainant agreed with Mr Keany that his role is that of a bar tender and cleaner. He agreed that the bar of the golf club is a seasonal business, with an uplift in the summer months. 
43. Mr Keany said that the respondent’s position is that the part-time nature of the job suited the complainant because he has other interests. The complainant disagreed.  He said that he has a YouTube channel, but he said that he regularly complained about others working more hours than him.
44. Mr Keany suggested to the complainant that he turned down offers of shifts. The complainant said that he never refused shifts and that he would “never regularly turn down any work.”
45. The complainant accepted that he was issued with a statement of his terms and conditions of employment, and he agreed that page 3 of this document refers to a grievance procedure. Point 21 refers to a company handbook.  The complainant said that his recollection is that the handbook wasn’t available when the contract was issued.  Mr Keany pointed out that, on page 8 of the statement of terms and conditions, the complainant signed his acknowledgement that he received a copy of the handbook.
46. Mr Keany referred to the fact that Mr Murrihy commenced as general manager in September 2023. He said that Mr Murrihy will say that of the complainant raised certain issues including notice of shifts available and the regularity of shifts.  Mr Keany said that the complainant never mentioned that female employees were being paid more than him.  The complainant replied that one of the cleaners was being paid more than him and that she and another cleaner got more shifts than him.  He said that Mr Murrihy assured him that this would stop.
47. Mr Keany said that the situation did change when the second cleaner left. The complainant said that he was uncomfortable about the pay, but he agreed that the rostering became “more fair”.  Mr Keany put it to the complainant that nowhere in his correspondence with the respondent is there any reference to unequal pay or unequal treatment.  The complainant replied that he raised the matters informally and that he thought it would be aggressive to submit a grievance. 
48. Mr Keany referred to the complainant’s letter to the respondent of July 31st 2024, addressed to “To Whom it May Concern.” Mr Keany suggested that this was a formal letter and that the complainant wasn’t shy about raising issues.  The complainant replied that he wrote this letter on the advice of the Citizens Information Centre.
49. Mr Keany reflected on the fact that the complainant took the time to write the letter, but that he didn’t include any reference to equal pay. The complainant replied that the Citizens Information Centre advised him to focus on the issues of public holiday pay and the Sunday premium.  Mr Keany asked how, if the complainant felt that discrimination was taking place, it wasn’t raised in his letter of July 31st 2024.  The complainant replied that “a lot of the discriminatory behaviour came after that,” and “females were given more hours.”  He said that, “from moment to moment,” compared to the two female cleaners, his treatment was wrong.  He said that the issue of public holiday pay and Sunday pay were two of many issues.  Mr Keany put it to the complainant that it wasn’t plausible that he wouldn’t flag “the headline issue.”  The complainant replied that, at the time the letter was written, he had no issues.  He said that the two cleaners had departed and “I was getting full-time hours.”  He said that he had no discriminatory complaints at this time.
50. Mr Keany put it to the complainant that the notion that he was entitled to full-time hours is nonsense and that the respondent had no commitment to give him full time hours. Mr Keany said that the complainant is making this claim on the basis of the letter of September 9th 2024 from the job activation agency, Turas Nua.  The complainant disagreed and said that he was told that he would be full-time and that the letter from Turas Nua is confirmation of this.
51. Mr Keany said that Mr Murrihy will say that the complainant sent him a text message with an elaborate request for hours. Mr Murrihy filled out the statement from the Department of Social Protection which confirms the hours that the complainant was working.  Mr Keany said that this doesn’t amount to a commitment to full-time hours and he asked the complainant to identify the basis of his claim that he is entitled to a full-time contract.  The complainant said that he was told verbally.
52. Mr Keany returned to the seasonal nature of the golf club’s business and the increase in hours in the bar in the summer. The complainant replied that a full-time bar manager was hired in September 2024 and that he could have got those hours.  He said that cleaners were hired and that he could have been given their hours.  He disagreed that he said he would only do occasional cleaning and he said that he was looking for security in the club.
53. Mr Keany said that in February 2024, when one of the cleaners left, Mr Murrihy offered the complainant her shift, but he declined. The complainant disagreed and said that he “never said no to anything.”  When that person left in July 2024, the club was without a cleaner.  The complainant said that he was doing the cleaning.  Mr Keany said that contract cleaners had to be brought in because the complainant’s preference was not to do cleaning.  The complainant replied that he never stated a preference.  He said that he didn’t apply for the advertised vacancy for a cleaner because “I was fully in the bar.” 
54. Mr Keany referred to the complainant’s decision to approach Mr Murrihy in September 2024, following a conversation with one of the full-time bar tenders who may have spoken to him about his performance. The complainant replied that Mr Murrihy said that the issue was about his flexibility.  He said that Mr Murrihy refused to say where the allegation came from. 
55. The complainant said that the bar tender told him that Mr Murrihy’s attitude to him had changed because of the letter of July 31st when he made claims for public holiday and Sunday pay. He claims that, at the meeting, Mr Murrihy told him that he could say he was entitled to just one shift a week.  The complainant said that he interpreted this as a clear threat.
56. Mr Keany referred to the fact that the complainant returned to work in October 2024 and worked until the end of March. During this time, he would have frequently seen Mr Meany in the workplace.  The complainant said that he didn’t speak to Mr Meany about his concerns because he had been “promised a HR meeting” and he was going to raise the issues then.  The complainant said that his hours were reduced when he returned to work, which he claims, is what Mr Murrihy said would happen.
57. Mr Keany referred to the record of the complainant’s hours during the winter of 2024/2025 which are greater than the hours worked in the winter of 2023/2024. The complainant replied that his hours were not full-time.  He claims that the fact that a new person was hired when he was out sick indicates that he could have been given full-time hours in the winter of 2024/2025.  He said that he could have maintained his summer hours during the winter.
58. Mr Keany referred to the complainant’s claim (CA-00070469-006) under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act that he was penalised for raising complaints about public holiday pay and a Sunday premium. The complainant agreed that “primarily” this is what that complaint is about.
59. Mr Keany put it to the complainant that none of the issues that he raised in his complaints submitted to the WRC on April 1st 2025 were referred to in his letter of July 31st 2024. The complainant said that he raised the issue of females “getting a better deal than me” at a meeting with Mr Meany in Starbucks.
60. Mr Keany referred to an email from Mr Meany to the complainant dated April 10th 2025 in which Mr Meany said that he hoped that the issues could be resolved “in-house” before the need for adjudication. The complainant said that he wanted Mr McEvoy to act on his behalf.  Mr Keany referred to the opinion of the occupational health consultant who advised that he engage with his employer.  On October 29th 2025, the respondent’s solicitors wrote to Mr McEvoy and proposed that the parties engage in mediation, the cost of which would be covered by the respondent.  The complainant said that he was permitted to have Mr McEvoy at a meeting with him only after the intervention of the occupational health consultant.
61. Mr Keany referred to the complaints submitted to the WRC by the complainant on February 12th 2026 and the complainant’s resignation on February 10th. He said that the complainant gave no indication of his intention to resign.  The complainant said that, after a discussion with his doctor and therapist, he decided to leave.  He said that he didn’t think the club had responded to his complaints and he didn’t think that they engaged in good faith.
62. Mr Keany referred to the complainant’s third complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act (CA-00070469-003). Under this heading, the complainant claims that he was “rarely provided with his legally entitled breaks” (sic).  The complainant said that he wasn’t rostered for breaks.  He said he would be “handed a plate of food, go around the corner in the bar and eat it quickly.”  He said that he’s not suggesting that he didn’t get a break for the entire period of his employment.  He agreed that he didn’t have to clock out and back in for breaks.
63. Mr Keany said that the respondent’s position is that employees were expected to take breaks and to raise issues if they didn’t get their breaks. The complainant replied that he would tell the bar manager or the assistant manager that “I didn’t get a break yesterday and I won’t get a break today.”  He disagreed with Mr Keany that the provision of free food is equivalent to a break.
64. Mr Keany asked the complainant to identify a date during the cognizable period between September 31st 2024 and April 1st 2025 when he didn’t get a break. The complainant said that he couldn’t identify a date on which he didn’t get a break. 
65. Mr Keany referred to the complainant’s assertion that, based on conversations with colleagues, others were paid more than him. Mr Keany said that no one in the respondent’s employment was paid more than the complainant except the food and beverage supervisor.  The complainant didn’t respond to Mr Keany’s question, “Why do you think people are paid more than you?”
66. Mr Keany asked the complainant what his complaint under the Protection of Employees (Part-time Work) Act 2001 (CA-00070469-007) was about. The complainant replied that the assistant bar manager told him that he was paid double time for working on Sundays.  He said that he understood that the groundsmen were also paid double time for Sundays. 
67. At the conclusion of his evidence, in response to my enquiries, the complainant said that he had a meeting with Mr Murrihy in May 2024 at which he asked for a contract for full-time hours. He said that he asked to be paid a salary rather than an hourly rate.  He said that Mr Murrihy replied that they would have a “full contract negotiation in the winter.”  He said that he thought he would be offered the position of supervisor, but this role was filled in March 2025.  This is the role of food and beverage supervisor.  He said that he wasn’t asked to apply for this job.
68. Mr Keany then re-examined the complainant, who agreed that the role of food and beverage supervisor was created after a decision to bring the catering function back in house. The complainant said that he was told about this.  He said that he was told that the role of food and beverage supervisor would be his.  Then he said that he found out in March 2025 that interviews were under way.  Mr Keany asked the complainant why someone would be hired, if the plan was to give him the job.  The complainant replied that he was told in May 2024 (that the job was for him) and then “none of it happened.”  He said that if he hadn’t been at work in March 2025, he wouldn’t have known about the interviews. 

Summary of the Respondent’s Position:

69. Opening his submission for the respondent, Mr Keany said that the complainant’s version of events is, in certain respects, fundamentally at odds with the reality of his employment. The respondent’s case is that the complainant was treated fairly by the respondent, that he was paid the entitlements he was due and that his terms and conditions were consistent with those of comparable employees.
70. Mr Keany said that the complainant’s hours fluctuated in accordance with the seasonal nature of the golf business; he was offered additional work, which he declined and he never looked for or was promised full-time employment. The reduction in the complainant’s hours following his return from sick leave in October 2024 was consistent with the normal seasonal pattern of the business and was not related to the fact that he raised concerns about his employment.
71. The complainant was offered additional hours in cleaning duties, but he declined to take up that offer. When he was asked to be more flexible regarding his availability to meet the operational needs of the business, he decided not to engage with his employer, but instead, he issued these claims, which came as a surprise to the respondent.
72. The complainant has been provided with and has signed a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment. He accepts that this was issued to him in May 2023.  The statement makes clear that the complainant was employed on a part-time basis with hours varying according to the operational requirements of the business.  From the commencement of his employment, the complainant understood that he was employed on a part-time basis, to cover shifts not covered by full-time staff and to provide additional cover during busy periods, particularly during the summer golf season.  The complainant’s patter of work from 2018 show a consistent seasonal variation. 
73. At a meeting with the newly appointed general manager, Mr Murrihy, in October 2023, the complainant told him that he was interested in podcasting and film product and that the job suited him due because he lived nearby. The complainant asked Mr Murrihy for a more regularised roster, complaining that he found out at short notice when he was required to come to work.  He also stated that he would like a pay increase.
74. Mr Murrihy introduced procedures for managing annual leave requests and he arranged the advance publication of rosters and defined the bar opening and closing times so that working hours became more predicable for staff and members. The complainant worked an average of 35.3 hours per week during the peak summer period in 2024.  Following his return from sick leave in the winter of 2024/2024, he worked an average of 22.54 hours per week, higher than his average weekly hours in the previous winter, 21.48. 

The Respondent’s Response to the Complainant’s Allegations

The Meeting of September 3rd 2024

75. Mr Keany asserted that the complainant’s characterisation of this meeting is inaccurate. Mr Murrihy wanted to speak to the complainant about his unavailability for certain shifts, which was causing difficulties with the roster, particularly when others were on leave.  Mr Murrihy gave evidence that the discussion with the complainant was cordial and that he remained in the bar talking to him while he had a cup of coffee.

The Allegation of an Offer of a Full-time Contract

76. It is the complainant’s case that he was offered a full-time contract in March 2024 and that this offer was subsequently reneged upon. He relies on a letter of September 9th 2024 from Turas Nua, which refers to “full time hours.”  Mr Keany said that this is “a fundamental mischaracterisation, or, at the very least, a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of that communication.”
77. In March and April 2024, the complainant asked Mr Murrihy for assistance with his social welfare arrangements. The complainant was in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance and his social welfare officer required confirmation from his employer as to his hours of work so that his social welfare entitlements could be calculated correctly.  Mr Murrihy agreed to provide this confirmation.  The letter to Turas Nua confirmed that during the upcoming summer season, the complainant's hours would increase in line with the seasonal pattern of the business and that he could expect to work 30 hours per week or more during that period.
78. This was a statement of fact about the expected pattern of the complainant's working hours during the summer season for the purpose of calculating his social welfare entitlements. It was not, and was never intended to be, an offer of a full-time contract of employment. The respondent was not seeking to employ a full-time person in the bar at that time and has not since hired a full-time person in that role.  The bar operation is adequately staffed by two full-time employees together with part-time support from the complainant and other part-time bar and food and beverage staff.
79. In light of the complainant’s contention, now, that he believed that he was being offered full-time employment from March 2024 onwards, Mr Keany said that it is noteworthy that he did not request a written contract, did not raise any concerns when no contract was forthcoming, and did not mention this alleged promise in any of his subsequent meetings with management. In his meeting with Mr Meany and Ms Ryan in February 2024, he made no reference to any expectation of full-time employment. In his one-to-one meeting with Mr Murrihy in May 2024, he made no reference to any expectation of full-time employment. In his letter to the Respondent of July 31st 2024 concerning bank holiday pay and Sunday premium, he made no reference to any expectation of full-time employment.

The Appointment of Another Person to the Cleaning Role

80. The complainant claims that a person was appointed to the vacant cleaning job without consultation with him and that this was done to undermine his ability to rely on the comparators he named in is equal pay claim. Mr Keany submitted that this allegation is without foundation.
81. Most of the cleaning hours in the club were covered by a named person, who was the most senior and had overall responsibility for cleaning. The remaining cover was provided by another cleaner and the complainant.  When the junior person left in early 2024, the complainant was asked to work more shifts, but he didn’t want to work the additional hours, claiming that his job was as a bar tender and not a cleaner.  When the senior person left in July 2024, Mr Murrihy again approached the complainant and asked him if he wanted the hours that were available.  He declined this offer and the respondent recruited a cleaner.  The complainant didn’t apply for the role.

Response to the Individual Complaints:

CA-00070469-001:  Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

82. The respondent’s position is that the complainant’s allegation that he was not provided with a statement of his terms and conditions of employment is false. Included in the respondent’s documents for the hearing (also included in the complainant’s documents) is a copy of a signed statement issued to him in May 2023.

CA-00070469-002:  Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

83. The complainant alleges that the cancellation of nine shifts between November 2024 and February 2025 is a breach of s.18 of the Organisation of Working Time Act (“the 1997 Act”). In the seasonal and weather-dependent business of a golf club, staffing requirements can vary from day to day.  The adjustments to the complainant’s rostered hours were made for operational reasons.  The respondent’s position is that s.18 does not create an entitlement to pay for every cancelled shift, but that it provides a guarantee of 25% of contracted hours in any given week.  To succeed in a complaint under s.18 of the 1997 Act, the complainant must establish that he was not required to work at least 25% of his contacted hours and that he did not receive the minimum payment under s.18(4).

CA-00070469-003:  Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

84. The complainant alleges that he was rarely permitted to take a break, although, in his evidence, he conceded that this situation improved when Mr Murrihy took over the rosters in February 2024. Staff did not clock in and out for breaks.  The respondent’s position is that, if the complainant had genuine concerns about not getting breaks, he would have raised this with management at the time.  He did not do so.

CA-00070469-004:  Complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998

85. The complainant alleges that four female colleagues were paid a higher rate than him and that they were rostered for more hours than him. In his submission, Mr Keany presented the hourly rates of the four females named by the complainant under this heading.  One employee, appointed in March 2025 to the role of food and beverage supervisor, was paid 75 cents per hour more than the complainant.  The complainant did not do the same job as this comparator and, for this reason, Mr Keany submitted that there is no evidential basis for a finding of discrimination. 

The complainant has submitted no data that shows that he was offered less hours than his female colleague.  He declined the offer of additional hours doing cleaning work and he did not apply for a vacancy that arose from the departure of two members of the cleaning staff.

CA-00070469-005:  Complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998

86. The complainant claims that he was discriminated against when he wasn’t invited to apply for the role of food and beverage supervisor. The respondent’s position is that this job was advertised openly and, if the complainant had been interested in the job, he could have applied.  His failure to do so cannot now be used as the basis of a claim of discrimination.

CA-00070469-006:  Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

87. The complainant alleges that he was penalised for raising issues concerning his terms and conditions of employment. The respondent disputes that the complainant made a protected act consistent with the provisions of s.6C(1)(a) to (d) of the 1994 Act.  He has not identified the alleged acts of penalisation to which he was subjected, beyond his contention that his hours of work were reduced after September 2024.  The evidence demonstrates that his hours of work were slightly increased.  The respondent’s position is that the complaint of penalisation is unsubstantiated and ought to be dismissed.

CA-00070469-007:  Complaint under the Protection of Employees (Part-time Work) Act 2001

88. The complainant claims that he is treated less favourably compared to full-time groundsmen, who are paid double time for working on Sundays. The respondent’s position is that the groundsmen are not comparable employees within the meaning of s.7(3) of the Part-time Work Act.  They perform a different role and are subject to different terms and conditions of employment.

Evidence of the Respondent’s General Manager, Mr Eric Murrihy:

89. Mr Murrihy said that the club has around 1,200 members. He commenced in the role of general manager in October 2023.  He met all the employees on an individual basis, including the complainant, who was employed as a part-time bar man and cleaner.  He learned that he has an interest in podcasting and films.  At their meeting in October 2023, Mr Murrihy said that the complainant said that his roster was irregular, that he didn’t get enough notice of his shifts and that he preferred working in the bar.
90. Mr Keany referred to the complainant’s grievance that that he thought women working in the club were paid more than him. Mr Murrihy said that the complainant never referred to anyone else’s pay, but he said that he wanted to be paid more.  He did not say that he was looking for a full-time job.
91. There are two full-time managers and one part-time employee in the bar which opens at 10.00am and closes one hour after darkness. The full-time staff are paid an annual salary.  Extra staff are brought in four or five times a year for events.  The restaurant had been franchised.  The pro shop is run by a franchisee.  There are eight green-keepers who work full-time from Monday to Friday.
92. Mr Murrihy named the two cleaners who were employed when he started in the role of general manager. He said that these two employees worked from 8.00an until 1.30pm or 2.30pm. 
93. Mr Keany reminded Mr Murrihy that the complainant said that he wanted more shifts and that he never turned down a shift. Mr Murrihy named one of the cleaners who left in February or March 2024.  He said the club needed cleaning every day and that the remaining cleaner ended up doing more shifts and the complainant did one or two extra shifts.  Mr Murrihy said that he asked the complainant to do more, but he said that he didn’t see himself as a cleaner.  He said that the complainant never indicated to him that he wanted the cleaning shifts.
94. The remaining cleaner left in the summer of 2025. Mr Murrihy said that he used a contract cleaning company for three weeks, for which a premium had to be paid.  He said that he is still short of people to fill the cleaning shifts, which is now done only on six days of the week.
95. Mr Murrihy said that the club is a seasonal business and affected by the weather. On wet days, there’s no golf and the course is closed.  There’s no work in the bar and no catering.  These are the circumstances in which staff have to be managed.  Mr Murrihy said that he sent the complainant text messages to ask him to do deep cleaning.  He came in once, but refused on two occasions.
96. Mr Keany said that the complainant’s case is that he got an indication in the Spring of 2024 that he would be full-time going into the summer that year. His average weekly hours from xx 2025 to xx 2025 was 35.3 hours.  Mr Keany asked Mr Murrihy what the year-round pattern of working hours was in the bar.  Mr Murrihy said that the business in the bar follows the daylight.  It closes at 5.30pm in the winter months and 7.30pm in November and March.  He said that there is no work for a third full-time person in the bar.
97. Mr Keany referred to the email of September 9th 2024 from the case worker in Turas Nua. He suggested that the complainant is placing a lot of emphasis on this document and its reference to “your full time hours.”  Mr Murrihy said that the complainant went to payroll on a weekly basis and with a form to complete to indicate the days on which he worked.  Often referred to as an “X and O” form, this must be submitted to the Intreo office to make a claim for Job Seeker’s Allowance for the day on which the employee isn’t offered any work.  Mr Murrihy said that the email of September 9th 2024 is confirmation of the hours worked over a specific period of time.  He said that the payroll office never indicated to the complainant that he was full-time.  Between the end of March and September 2024 was the busy season in the bar and the complainant worked more hours than he worked in the winter.
98. Mr Keany referred to the complainant’s evidence that, at a meeting with Mr Murrihy in May 2024, he was offered a full-time position. Mr Murrihy said that there was no question of that.  He said that there wasn’t another full-time position in May 2024 and there still isn’t one.  He said that the complainant was never promised a full-time job.
99. Mr Keany asked Mr Murrihy about the complainant’s assertion that women in the club were paid more than him. Mr Murrihy said that he heard about this first from the complainant’s submission to the WRC. Mr Keany referred to the four females named by the complainant on the complaint form.  Mr Murrihy said that three are paid less than the complainant and the fourth is a food and beverage supervisor and she is paid a higher hourly rate.  The job of the food and beverage supervisor is to liaise with the catering franchise business in relation to the food service to be provided by the club and to manage the events that take place during the year.  Mr Murrihy said that this is a part-time job which was advertised.  The complainant didn’t apply for the role and Mr Murrihy said that he never expressed an interest in this job. 
100. Mr Keany referred to the complainant’s evidence that he should have been given the job of the cleaner who left in the summer of 2024. Mr Murrihy said that it would have suited him if the complainant had taken on the cleaning shifts, but he made it clear that the wanted bar work. 
101. Mr Keany referred to the letter from the complainant dated July 31st 2024 in which the complainant requested pay for public holidays and a Sunday premium. Mr Murrihy said that this letter came to him from payroll.  He replied on August 13th 2024.  With regard to the Sunday premium, Mr Murrihy informed the complainant that his hourly rate included a premium for Sundays.  The complainant had been paid for all the public holidays that he worked, apart from the first Monday in May 2024 and this was given as a day accrued.
102. Mr Keany referred to the complainant’s evidence that the sending of this letter was the beginning of his problems in the workplace and that, at a meeting in September 2024, he claims that Mr Murrihy turned against him.
103. Mr Murrihy recalled that he had what he referred to as an “honest, friendly conversation” with the complainant and that he remained in the bar and had a cup of coffee afterwards. He said that he thought that he addressed the complainant’s concerns about Sunday and public holiday pay and, after the meeting, complainant’s hours remained the same.
104. Mr Murrihy said that “there were rumblings” that the complainant wasn’t available for shifts and he asked him “What’s the story. Why are you being awkward?” He said that there was no mention of pay inequality at the meeting and that it was about the complainant’s inflexibility with the roster.
105. Mr Keany asked Mr Murrihy about his interactions with the complainant between October 2024 and March 2025. Mr Murrihy replied, “same as before.”  He said that he would go to the bar to have a coffee and there didn’t seem to be any outstanding issues.  The complainant’s hours hadn’t been reduced compared to previous years, but had increased slightly. 
106. Mr Murrihy said that the sat beside the complainant at the Christmas party in 2024 and they chatted about films. He said that he was shocked to receive the complaint in April 2025 and that he is sad to be here (in the WRC).
107. Mr Keany asked Mr Murrihy to address complaint reference number CA-00070469-003, the complainant’s contention that he didn’t get breaks at work. Mr Murrihy said that the rota for the bar staff is as follows:

Employee A:  10.00am – 6.00pm

Employee B:  12.00pm – 8.00pm

Employee C:  1.00pm – 7.00pm

Mr Murrihy said that the rota facilitates a cross-over period at 1.00pm, when three employees are rostered on.  Mr Murrihy said that all staff are provided with meals during their shifts.  Meals have to be ordered and recorded so that they are paid for by the club.  Mr Murrihy said that a golf club is not like a put, and that there is plenty of opportunity to take a break.  He said that if t he complainant wasn’t getting breaks, he should have spoken to him. 

Cross-examining of Mr Murrihy

108. Mr McEvoy asked Mr Murrihy to describe how the employees of the club take their breaks. Mr Murrihy replied that the employees order food and take it into another room, usually the function room.
109. Mr McEvoy said that the complainant used to eat his food at the bar during a lull in service. Mr Murrihy replied that he couldn’t see how this could happen, because the bar isn’t busy.
110. Mr McEvoy suggested to Mr Murrihy that there is nowhere in the club for the staff to eat. Mr Murrihy said that he observed the complainant with his headphones on eating his food.  He said that breaks are not taken between 1.00pm and 2.00pm, but during quieter periods.  In response to Mr McEvoy’s assertion that sometimes, the complainant only got a break for 10 minutes, Mr Murrihy said that he provided the facility for people to take breaks and no one told him that they didn’t get a break.  He said that he re-structured the roster so that the three employees in the bar could take breaks.  He said that breaks are not recorded on the clocking in and out system and he wasn’t aware that the complainant wasn’t getting breaks.
111. Mr McEvoy asked Mr Murrihy about his recollection of his meeting with the complainant in September 2024. Mr Murrihy said that he didn’t agree with the language the complainant used about this meeting.  He said that the complainant approached him, he was complaining about his roster.  Mr Murrihy said that he asked him to be flexible.  He said that he likes the employees to take two days off together and he expected the complainant to cover for the days off of the two full-time staff.  Mr Murrihy said that he doesn’t’ accept that he described the complainant as “the bottom of the barrel” or that he cursed at him.  He said that there was no talk about entitlements and that he asked him to cover the two full-timers, meaning that he would be rostered to work weekends.
112. In response to a question from Mr McEvoy, Mr Murrihy said that the complainant never asked about full-time work. In two weeks, he worked 50 hours and his average for the year up to September 2024 was more than 30 hours per week.  Mr Murrihy said that there are still two full-time and one part-time employee in the bar.  In the summer, the complainant worked close to full-time hours and in the winter, he did around 22 or 23 hours per week.
113. Mr McEvoy asked Mr Murrihy why he thought that the complainant wasn’t flexible. Mr Murrihy replied that the bare managers reported that there were problems with the roster and that the complainant wanted weekends off and specific days off.  At the meeting in September 2024, Mr Murrihy said that he told the complainant that flexibility is key.  He wasn’t flexible and when he asked to speak to me, I told him that he needed to be flexible.
114. Mr McEvoy asked Mr Murrihy why the vacancies for the cleaning jobs and the job of food and beverage supervisor weren’t advertised internally. Mr Murrihy said that, in a business with 21 employees, it becomes common knowledge when someone leaves.  He said that there is no chance that the complainant wouldn’t know when there was a vacancy.  He advertised the roles on Indeed.ie, but he had months when he had no cleaners and had to hire contract cleaners.  He asked, “Why would I double the cost by paying contractors if the complainant wanted the work?”

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00070469-001:  Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

115. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant was issued with a statement of his terms and conditions of employment in May 2023, and that he confirmed that he agreed with the terms by signing the statement. After he received and signed this document, he never raised a concern about the contents; however, at the hearing on March 30th 2026, Mr McEvoy claimed that the statement was deficient because of the failure to state the nature or duration of the contract, the normal weekly hours of work, pension arrangements, probation and overtime.

The Nature and Duration of the Contract

116. Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (“the 1994 Act”) was amended by the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018 and further amended by the European Union (Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions) Regulations 2022. The complainant’s case is that his contract is silent on the nature and duration of the contract.  At s.3(1A)(c) of the 1994 Act, certain information is stipulated: 

(c) in the case of a temporary contract of employment, the expected duration thereof or, if the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the date on which the contract expires[.]

The complainant was not employed on a temporary basis, and, for this reason, I am satisfied that the respondent was not required to make any reference to the nature and duration of his contract. 

Hours of Work

117. Mr McEvoy argued that the statement issued to the complainant is deficient because it doesn’t specify his hours of work. Section 3(1)(p) of the 1994 Act address the circumstances of an employee whose hours of work are irregular: 

(p) If the work pattern of an employee is entirely or mostly unpredictable, the statement shall inform the employee of -

• (i) the principle that the work schedule is variable, the number of guaranteed paid hours and the remuneration for work performed in addition to those guaranteed hours,
• (ii) the reference hours and days within which the employee may be required to work, and
• (iii) the minimum notice period to which the employee is entitled to before the start of a work assignment and, where applicable, the deadline for notification in accordance with section 17 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997[.]

Under the heading, “Normal Weekly Hours of Work,” the contract issued to the complainant states:

“The club operates a 7 day business between Monday and Sunday.  You will work such hours per day and such hours per week as will be determined by the business from time to time.”

After a reference to an employee’s entitlement to breaks, the statement continues:

“Working hours are subject to change from time to time and, in such case, agreement will be sought from the staff concerned and/or a minimum of 30 days’ written notice will be given of the change.

During the course of employment, employees must be willing to work as part of a rota and are expected to be at their place of work and at the required starting time and then to work in accordance with roster / rota arrangements.  You will appreciate that in a busy club, ongoing flexibility is important.  The General Manager, manager or nominee will explain your work pattern to you.”

It is apparent from this that the hours that the complainant was expected to work were not fixed, but were determined by the needs of the business.  Having examined the statement issued to the complainant and compared it with the requirements of s.3(1)(p) of the 1994 Act, it is apparent that the document is deficient with regard to the following:

• There is no reference to the minimum number of hours that the complainant was guaranteed to work each week;
• There is no reference to the start and finish time of his shifts;
• There is no reference to the number of hours’ notice to be given of the start of a shift.

Pension

118. Section 3(1)(k) of the 1994 Act requires an employer to include a provision in a statement of an employee’s terms and conditions of employment regarding,

(k) any terms or conditions relating to -

• (i) incapacity for work due to sickness or injury and paid sick leave, and
• (ii) pensions and pension schemes[.]

The document issued to the complainant contains no reference to pensions and pension schemes, but states simply that, “The retirement age is on your 65th birthday.”  I understand that the complainant was not enrolled in a pension scheme, and therefore, the absence of any reference to a pension scheme reflects the failure of the respondent to make provision for a pension.  If the complainant is making a complaint about the failure to make provision for a pension, he was required to make a separate complaint under the relevant legislation.  The absence of a reference to a pension scheme, where there was no provision for a scheme, is not a deficiency in the statement of the complainant’s terms and conditions of employment.

Probation

119. When he was issued with this contract in May 2023, the complainant had been in the employment of the respondent for five years. For this reason, there was no need to refer to a period of probation.

Overtime

120. The complainant was a part-time employee and, although the evidence presented to me at the hearing indicated that he worked up to 55 hours per week in some weeks during the summer, he worked an average of 29.5 hours per week in the 12 months to the end of September 2024. As the respondent paid him a flat hourly rate for all the hours he worked, there was no requirement to include a provision in his contract of employment concerning a payment for overtime.

Conclusion Regarding the Claim of Deficiencies in the Statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment

121. I have examined this complaint and I have concluded that there were certain deficiencies in the statement of terms and conditions issued to the complainant in May 2023. These include the failure to state the minimum number of hours he was guaranteed to work each week, confirmation of the start and finish time of his shifts and the amount of notice to be given of the start of a shift.  I am satisfied that the complainant reasonably expected to work at a minimum, two shifts each week and that the absence of the written guarantee of hours was not a disadvantage to him.  I am satisfied also that the complainant was always aware of the start and finish times of his shifts and of the notice he would be given regarding his weekly roster. 
122. Before he resigned from his job, the complainant raised no issue concerning the deficits he now points to in the statement of his terms and conditions. It is regrettable that he made no effort to resolve this matter before he submitted this complaint to the WRC.  While it is disappointing that the complainant brought this claim to the WRC before he brought it to the attention of the respondent, I am not satisfied that the statement issued to him in May 2023 is entirely compliant with the requirements of s.3 of the 1994 Act and I find therefore, that there is some substance to his complaint under this heading.

CA-00070469-002:  Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

123. This is a complaint about the cancellation of nine shifts between November 2024 and February 2025, which the complainant alleges, is a breach of s.18 of the Organisation of Working Time Act. Section 18(1) states as follows:
     • (1) This section applies to an employee whose contract of employment operates to require the employee to make himself or herself available to work for the employer in a week -
       • (a) a certain number of hours ("the contract hours"),
       • (b) as and when the employer requires him or her to do so, or
       • (c) both a certain number of hours and otherwise as and when the employer requires him or her to do so,

and the requirement is not one that is held to arise by virtue only of the fact, if such be the case, of the employer having engaged the employee to do work of a casual nature for him or her on occasions prior to that week (whether or not the number of those occasions or the circumstances otherwise touching the engagement of the employee are such as to give rise to a reasonable expectation on his or her part that he or she would be required by the employer to do work for the employer in that week).

I am satisfied that, as the complainant’s contract required him to be available “as determined by the business from time to time,” that this section of the 1997 Act applied to him.

124. Section 18(4) of the 1997 Act addresses the circumstances in which an employee is not required to work any hours for their employer in a particular week. In such circumstances, the employee is entitled to be paid 25% of the hours worked in a previous week, or pay for 15 hours, whichever is the lesser.  The complainant has not shown that, in any week, he was not required to work at least 25% of his normal hours and, for this reason, I find that there is no substance to this complaint.

CA-00070469-003:  Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

125. The evidence of the respondent is that employees do not clock in and out for breaks. In his evidence, the complainant said that “the breaks situation improved” after Mr Murrihy took over the rosters in February 2024.  In response to a question from Mr Keany, he said that he couldn’t identify a date in the six months before he submitted this complaint to the WRC,  when he didn’t get a break.
126. From his evidence, I noted that the complainant had direct contact with the respondent’s management, including the president and secretary of the club, and that he had meetings at which he raised concerns and brought things to their attention that he was unhappy about. He never raised a concern about not getting a break during the working day.  Based on his failure to raise a grievance about this matter, and his failure to present any evidence that could lead me to conclude that the respondent was in breach of s.12 of the 1997 Act in relation to breaks during the working day, I have reached the conclusion that there is no substance to this complaint.

CA-00070469-004:  Complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998

127. While the complainant alleged that four female colleagues were paid a higher hourly rate compared to him, the respondent’s evidence is that just one female employee was paid 75 cents per hour more than him. This employee is a food a beverage supervisor and is not in the same role as the complainant, who was a bar tender.  Section 19(1) of the Employment Equality Act addresses the entitlement to equal pay: 
     • (1) It shall be a term of the contract under which A is employed that, subject to this Act, A shall at any time be entitled to the same rate of remuneration for the work which A is employed to do as B who, at that or any other relevant time, is employed to do like work by the same or an associated employer.
128. I have considered the evidence of the respondent with regard to the tasks carried out by the person employed in the role of food and beverage supervisor. I am satisfied that this person is not employed to do work that meets the definition of “like work” at s19(1) of the Employment Equality Act and I am satisfied therefore, that there is no substance to this complaint.

CA-00070469-005:  Complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998

129. The complainant claims that he was discriminated against when he wasn’t invited to apply for the role of food and beverage supervisor which was filled by a female. It is not the responsibility of an employer to invite employees to apply for vacant positions; indeed, any suggestion to an employee that they should apply for a role would be open to a claim of favouritism or even discrimination.  The job of food and beverage supervisor was advertised and the complainant did not apply.  As he did not apply for the job, he wasn’t rejected for the role.  His claim of discrimination on the gender ground is therefore without substance.

CA-00070469-006:  Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

130. The complainant alleges that he was penalised for raising issues concerning his terms and conditions of employment. Section 6C(1) of the 1994 Act provides that,
     • (1) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation of an employee for -
       • (a) invoking any right conferred on him or her by this Act,
       • (b) having in good faith opposed by lawful means an act that is unlawful under this Act,
       • (c) giving evidence in any proceedings under this Act, or
       • (d) giving notice of his or her intention to do any of the things referred to in the preceding paragraphs.

131. I have reviewed the submission provided by Mr McEvoy in advance of the hearing on March 30th 2026, and I have listened carefully to the complainant’s evidence. None of the facts presented to me lead me to conclude that the complainant sought to assert any right under the 1994 Act, which, essentially, is about the entitlement to a statement of terms and conditions of employment.  At various times during his employment, the complainant met with the general manager and with the president and secretary of the club, and he outlined to them his desire for higher pay and his aspiration to be paid a salary rather than an hourly rate.  There is no evidence that he asserted any right to an entitlement under the 1994 Act.  It is apparent to me that there would have been no need for him to do so, having been issued with a statement of his terms and conditions of employment in May 2023.  I am satisfied that there is no substance to this complaint.

CA-00070469-007:  Complaint under the Protection of Employees (Part-time Work) Act 2001

132. The complainant claims that he was treated less favourably compared to full-time groundsmen who are paid double time for working on Sundays. His hourly rate of pay of €14.05 included the requirement to work on Sundays. 
133. The respondent’s case is that, to raise a complaint under this Act, the complainant must establish that he was a “comparable employee.” Under the heading, “Interpretation,” at s.7(2) of the 2001 Act, the definition of “comparable employee is set out:

(2) For the purposes of this Part, an employee is a comparable employee in relation to the employee firstly mentioned in the definition of “part-time employee” … if -

the employee and the relevant part-time employee are employed by the same employer or associated employers and one of the conditions referred to in subsection (3) is satisfied in respect of those employees[.]

The remainder of subsection (2) is not relevant to the complainant’s claim and it is necessary to move to subsection (3) to consider the conditions associated with being “a comparable employee.”  Only one of the subsections (3)(a), (3)(b) or (3)(c) below must apply: 

• (a) both of the employees concerned perform the same work under the same or similar conditions or each is interchangeable with the other in relation to the work,
• (b) the work performed by one of the employees concerned is of the same or a similar nature to that performed by the other and any differences between the work performed or the conditions under which it is performed by each, either are of small importance in relation to the work as a whole or occur with such irregularity as not to be significant, and
• (c) the work performed by the relevant part-time employee is equal or greater in value to the work performed by the other employee concerned, having regard to such matters as skill, physical or mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions.

134. It is evident that the complainant, in his role as a bar tender, did not perform the same work as the groundsmen and that subsection (3)(a) is not applicable. I am satisfied also that, considering subsection (3)(b) and the reference to work that is “of the same or similar nature,” that this does not apply to the relationship between the complainant’s job and the job of the groundsmen.  Considering subsection (3)(c), the issue to be determined is whether the job of the groundsmen and the job of a bar man are equal in value.  The answer must be, “it depends.”  It seems to me that a golf club could operate without a bar, but could not remain open without grounds staff looking after the course.  Depending on their particular responsibilities, it must take some time and skill to be a competent groundsman on a golf course.  While the role of a bar tender can be physically demanding and sometimes hectic, it can generally be done competently by most people after a few weeks’ experience.
135. Considering the issue of the rate of pay for Sundays, it is my view that a more reasonable comparator is an employee working in a bar or a hotel or restaurant. From investigations into complaints about the Sunday allowance, I note that an allowance of around 50 cents per hour above the minimum wage for all hours worked is reasonably commonplace as compensation for the requirement to work on Sundays in the hospitality sector.  The consolidated rate of €14.05 per hour was 55 cents above the minimum wage in 2025 and it is my view that this was in line with Sunday pay for employees doing comparable work. 

Decision:

136. Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act. 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.

CA-00070469-001:  Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

137. At para 122 above, I have concluded that there were certain deficiencies in the statement of terms and conditions of employment issued to the complainant in May 2023 and I decide therefore, that this complaint is partly well founded. I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €1,000, equivalent to approximately two weeks’ pay.

CA-00070469-002:  Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

138. I decide that this complaint, which is a claim for compensation for nine shifts that were cancelled between November 2024 and February 2025, is not well founded.

CA-00070469-003:  Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

139. I decide that this complaint concerning breaks during the working day is not well founded.

CA-00070469-004:  Complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998

140. I have concluded that the complainant was not discriminated against on the gender ground or on any other ground, and I decide therefore, that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00070469-005:  Complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998

141. The complainant was not paid less than female employees doing the same work. He was not prevented from applying for the role of food and beverage supervisor for which a female was recruited.  For these reasons, I decide that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00070469-006:  Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

142. I have concluded that the complainant did not make a complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act and that he did not seek to assert any rights under the Act. I decide therefore, that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00070469-007:  Complaint under the Protection of Employees (Part-time Work) Act 2001

143. I have concluded that the complainant’s job as a bar tender is not comparable to that of a full-time groundsman. I have also concluded that the rate of €14.05 which includes an allowance for Sunday working is comparable to the Sunday allowance paid to employees in the hospitality sector.  I decide therefore, that the complainant’s claim for double time for Sundays is not well founded.

Dated:   24th June 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

Key Words:  Statement of terms and conditions of employment, Sunday working, part-time work, discrimination on the gender ground.