Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ixshel  Solorzano

Bloom’s Cafe

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00073593-004

18/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022

CA-00073593-005

18/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00073593-006

18/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00073593-007

18/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00073593-008

18/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00073593-009

18/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00073593-010

18/07/2025

The Complainant was employed as a Pastry Chef by the Respondent from 23 December 2024 to 7 May 2025 and earned €540 per week. She referred several complaints to the WRC on 18 July 2025 in relation to her employment.

CA-00073593-005:

The Complainant gave evidence that, although she was absent on sick leave for a period during her employment, she did not receive payment in respect of that period. She accepted in the course of her evidence that she had not submitted a medical certificate covering the relevant period of absence.

CA-00073593-006:

The Complainant gave evidence that she regularly worked periods of not less than six hours during weekdays without a break, not less than eight hours at weekends without a break, and, on occasion, up to twelve hours at weekends without a break.

CA-00073593-007:

The Complainant contended that she is owed the sum of €866 in respect of accrued but untaken annual leave and public holiday entitlements.

CA-00073593-008:

The Complainant stated that she did not receive a written statement setting out her terms and conditions of employment.

CA-00073593-009:

The Complainant stated that she did not receive her notice entitlements following the termination of her employment.

CA-00073593-005:

The Respondent stated that the Complainant did not provide a medical certificate in respect of her absence on sick leave.

CA-00073593-006:

The Respondent, in the course of his evidence, stated that the Complainant took a break each day and brought her lunch to work, which she consumed during her break.

CA-00073593-007:

The Respondent accepted that the Complainant is owed the sum of €866 in respect of outstanding annual leave and public holiday entitlements.

CA-00073593-008:

While the Respondent accepted that the Complainant did not receive a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment, he stated that the terms were agreed orally.

CA-00073593-009:

The Respondent gave evidence that the Complainant neither worked nor sought to work her notice period.

CA-00073593-005:

Section 5 of the Sick Leave Act states 2022 as follows:

9) An employee shall, in respect of a statutory sick leave day, provide his or her employer with a medical certificate in an official language of the State signed by a registered medical practitioner stating that the employee named in the certificate is unable to work.

As the Complainant accepted in her evidence that she did not provide a medical certificate to the Respondent in respect of her period of absence due to illness, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00073593-006:

Section 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 imposes a statutory obligation on employers to provide appropriate rest breaks to employees. Specifically:

• Section 12(1): An employer shall not require an employee to work more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without granting a break of at least 15 minutes.
• Section 12(2): An employer shall not require an employee to work more than 6 hours without granting a break of at least 30 minutes, which may include the 15-minute break referred to in subsection (1).

Findings

The Complainant alleged that she did not receive the required rest breaks during her employment.

Although the Respondent argued that the Complainant took her breaks, I noted that under Section 25(1) of the Act, employers are required to maintain records demonstrating compliance with working time provisions. The Respondent failed to produce any such records to show that the Complainant received the rest breaks mandated under Section 12 however.

In the absence of any such records having been provided, I find that the complaint is well-founded.

CA-00073593-007:

As it was accepted by both parties that the Complainant was owed €866 by way of outstanding annual leave and public holidays, I find that this complaint is well founded.

CA-00073593-008:

The Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, as amended, (the “TE(I)A”) sets out the basic terms of employment which an employer must provide to an employee in written form. Section 3(1) of the TE(I)A also obligates an employer to provide employees with a statement in writing concerning other aspects of an employee’s terms and conditions of employment within one month of commencing employment.

The Complainant stated, and the Respondent accepted, that she did not receive a statement in writing of her general terms of employment within one month of commencing work.

I therefore find that this complaint is well founded.

CA-00073593-009:

Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, states:

4.—(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be—

(a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week,

(b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks,

(c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks,

(d) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for ten years or more, but less than fifteen years, six weeks,

(e) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for fifteen years or more, eight weeks.

As the Complainant accepted in evidence that she didn’t either work or seek to work her notice period following her dismissal, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00073593-004:

This is a duplicate complaint and has been addressed in the context of CA-00073593-009.

CA-00073593-005:

I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above.

CA-00073593-006:

I find that the complaint is well founded for the reasons set out above. Section 27(c) affords me the jurisdiction to require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment. Payment for rest breaks is not a statutory entitlement.

I note that the right to rest breaks is derived from the Working Time Directive, and that the Von Colson Principles therefore apply.

In assessing compensation, I am not satisfied on the evidence that there was a deliberate or systematic denial of rest breaks. The Complainant’s employment was also of relatively short duration, and no specific financial or health-related detriment was highlighted by her. In those circumstances, I consider the breaches to fall at the lower end of the scale and consider an award of €540, namely one weeks’ pay to be just and equitable.

CA-00073593-007:

I find that this complaint is well founded for the reasons set out above and direct that the Respondent pay €866 to the Complainant in respect of outstanding annual leave and public holidays.

CA-00073593-008:

I find that this complaint is well founded for the reasons set out above.

In deciding on an award of compensation, I note that the Respondent is a very small enterprise with very few employees and that no detriment was cited by the Complainant regarding the failure to provide the written statement. Bearing these factors in mind, I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €540, namely one weeks’ pay in respect of this complaint.

CA-00073593-009:

I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above.

CA-00073593-010:

This is a duplicate complaint and has been addressed in the context of CA-00073593-009.