ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00061811

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Mr Darren Carter	TULANE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT LIMITED T/A Dalata Hotel Group [amended on consent at hearing]

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms Grace O'Malley IBEC

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-00075128-001	04/09/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946	CA-00075128-002	04/09/2025
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-00075128-003	04/09/2025
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-00075128-004	04/09/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/04/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. The hearing was conducted in person in Lansdowne House.

While the parties are named in the Decision, I will refer to Mr Darren Carter as “the Complainant” and to TULANE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT LIMITED T/A Dalata Hotel Group as “the Respondent”.

The Complainant attended the hearing and he presented as a litigant in person. The Respondent was represented by Ms Grace O'Malley IBEC. In attendance on behalf of the Respondent was Ms Orlagh McLauglin Group Employee Manager.

I explained the procedural changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v An Adjudication Officer, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 in April 2021. No application was made by either party that the hearing be heard other than in public. The parties agreed to proceed in the knowledge that a decision issuing from the WRC would disclose identities.

I am required to set out ‘such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision’ per MacMenamin J in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63.

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 under statute. I can confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into this complaint.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear this complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

Both parties confirmed at close of hearing that they had been provided with the opportunity to present their respective cases and had nothing further to add.

Background:

This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 04/09/2025. Therefore, the cognisable period for these complaints is from 05/03/2025 to 04/09/2025. The Complainant alleges contravention by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statutes in relation to his employment with the Respondent.

The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 30/04/2026.

The Complainant is a former employee of the Respondent. The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as Head Chef all material times. The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 24/03/2024 such employment ending on 01/09/2025. The Complainant worked on average 39 hours weekly for which he was paid €1,056.61 gross per week.

The Respondent is the Maldron Hotel in Tallaght a provider of professional hospitality and accommodation services.

The Respondent provided written submissions and supporting documentation in advance of hearing.

The Complainant relied on the narrative on his WRC complaint form together with some screen shots supporting his complaints.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

CA-00075128-001 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submits he was required to work more than the maximum number of hours between October 21-27 and October 28 - November 03 in 2024.

The Complainant submits on some of the days in question he started work at 5am. They had sick calls in work and there was no help offered in anyway; as the head chef he was required to fill the hours which meant he did not finish work until 10.30 / 11pm that night and this happened on 2 or 3 occasions.

CA-00075128-002 complaint pursuant to Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946

The Complainant claims he did not get a daily rest period set out in the Employment Regulation Order (ER0) relating to the security industry.

CA-00075128-003 complaint pursuant to 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

The Complainant complains he did not get breaks. The Complainant at hearing did not dispute that he did not fall within the scope of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012.

CA-00075128-004 complaint pursuant to 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

The Complainant claims he helped by renting a van and he did some extra hours and he was told these hours would not be paid and the hours would not be put into lieu as he needed to do a single day for that to happen. Instead the Complainant claims he was paid lieu hours reaching 39.

The Complainant at hearing did not dispute that he did not fall within the scope of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

CA-00075128-001 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

While the Complainant alleges working 91 hours across two specific weeks in October 2024, the Respondent submits that:

• Under Section 15 of the OWTA, compliance with the 48-hour maximum is measured as an average over a 4-month reference period.

• The Complainant’s average weekly hours across his employment remained within the statutory limit. Any isolated instances of long hours were exceptional, necessitated by "sick calls" (as admitted by the Complainant), and fell under the "Special Circumstances" provisions of the Act.

CA-00075128-002 complaint pursuant to Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946

The Complainant claims he did not get a daily rest period set out in the Employment Regulation Order (ER0) and he submits his claim relates to the security industry.

The Complainant cites an Employment Regulation Order (ERO) specific to the Security Industry to claim rest period breaches. This ERO is legally irrelevant to the hospitality sector and the role of a Head Chef.

The Complainant cites an Employment Regulation Order (ERO) for the Security Industry. The Respondent is a hotel; the Complainant was a Head Chef. An ERO for security guards has no legal standing in a kitchen environment.

The Respondent maintains that the Complainant was responsible for managing his own roster and ensuring he took his statutory breaks. The Respondent denies the allegation that the Complainant was "forced" to clock out while working; the hotel provides adequate facilities and encourages all staff to take their rest entitlements.

Regarding the "van rental" in April 2025, any such activity was outside the scope of his Head Chef duties. The 8 hours in question were handled via the company’s lieu time policy, which the Complainant was aware of.

The Respondent submits that the majority of the claims are filed under incorrect legislation and regulations that do not apply to the hospitality industry. Regarding the OWTA 1997 claims, the Respondent maintains that the Complainant was treated fairly, paid correctly for his 39-hour week, and that any "peak" hours worked did not breach the statutory 4-month average.

The Respondent respectfully requests that the Adjudication Officer dismiss the claims in their entirety.

Findings and Conclusions:

In conducting my investigation, I have reviewed all relevant submissions and supporting documentation presented to me by the parties. I have carefully considered the oral evidence adduced at hearing. I deemed it necessary to make my own inquiries into the complaint during hearing to establish and understand the facts and to seek clarification on certain matters.

CA-00075128-001 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Relevant Law

Weekly working hours.

15.—(1) An employer shall not permit an employee to work, in each period of 7 days, more than an average of 48 hours, that is to say an average of 48 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a “reference period ”) that does not exceed—

(a) 4 months, or

(b) 6 months—

(i) in the case of an employee employed in an activity referred to in paragraph 2, point 2.1. of Article 17 of the Council Directive, or

(ii) where due to any matter referred to in section 5, it would not be practicable (if a reference period not exceeding 4 months were to apply in relation to the employee) for the employer to comply with this subsection,

(c) such length of time as, in the case of an employee employed in an activity mentioned in subsection (5), is specified in a collective agreement referred to in that subsection.

Section 15 of the 1997 Act provides that an employer shall not permit an employee to work more than 48 hours on average per week calculated over the relevant reference period.

I note it is the Complainant’s case that he worked more than the maximum permitted number of hours in two specific weeks in October / November 2024. I note the Complainant filed his complaint with the WRC on 04/09/2025.

Therefore, the cognisable period of this complaint is from 05/03/2025 to 04/09/3025.

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 provides as follows in respect of time limits:

“Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 provides that if a complaint is not submitted within six months of the alleged contravention, an extension may be granted by an Adjudication Officer up to a maximum time limit of twelve months where, in the opinion of the Adjudication Officer, a Complainant has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay in accordance with the provisions:

“An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than six months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.”

By application of the time limit provided for at section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 the cognisable period for the purpose of this claim is limited to the six-month period ending on the date on which the complaint was filed referred the WRC.

The complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 was referred to the Commission on 04/09/2025. In the absence of any application for an extension of time on grounds of reasonable cause, my jurisdiction is limited to alleged contraventions occurring between 05/03/2025 and 01/09/2025 the date on which the employment ceased.

Notwithstanding and for the avoidance of doubt, it was explained to the unrepresented Complainant that the 4 months reference period is a standard rolling timeframe used to calculate the average weekly working hours of an employee generally or 6 months having regard to specific sectors.

There was no evidence presented to support the complaint of a contravention of section 15 of the 1997 Act having regard to the circumstances set out above and applying the law to those facts.

I find this complaint as presented to be not well-founded.

CA-00075128-002 complaint pursuant to Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946

I note the Complainant claims contravention of an ERO. It is common case the Complainant is not in a category of employees to whom an ERO applies. I therefore find, in accordance with section 45A that the complaint of non-receipt of a daily rest period as set out in the ERO is not-well-founded.

The European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 apply to mobile workers and those engaged in international road transport activities. The Complainant was employed as a Head Chef. The Complainant does not have locus standi to maintain a complaint under the European Communities (Road Transport) Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012.

It is noted the Complainant conceded that his employment did not come within the scope of the Regulations. I am satisfied the Complainant’s employment was not covered by the provisions of the impleaded legislation.

No evidence has been presented to support a claim under the Regulations and, therefore, I mustfind that this complaint as presented is not well-founded.

No evidence has been presented to support a claim under the Regulations and, therefore, I must find that this complaint as presented is not well-founded.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

CA-00075128-001 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00075128-002 complaint pursuant to Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946

For the reasons set out above and in accordance with section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act 1946, I decide this the complaint is not well-founded.

For the reasons set out above and in accordance with Regulation 18 of S.I. No 36/2012, I decide that the complaint is not well-founded.

Dated: 03rd of June 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Key Words: