ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00063908

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  22/06/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

Procedure:

1. In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, this complaint was assigned to me by the Director General. I conducted a hearing on June 22nd 2026 and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint.  The complainant, Mr Sucru Hink, represented himself.  Mr Hink’s former employer, Firestone Pizza Limited, was represented by the managing director, Mr Ben Kull and the company secretary, Ms Sinéad Kull. 
2. While the parties are named in this Decision, from here on, I will refer to Mr Hink as “the complainant” and to Firestone Pizza Limited as “the respondent.”

Background:

3. The complainant is a chef and he worked in the respondent’s pizza café at a pub in Ballymore Eustace. The parties disagree about the precise date on which he commenced in his role, but I have deduced from the evidence of both sides that he went for a trial for about two weeks before starting properly in March or April 2025.  The complainant’s contract of employment shows that he was required to work up to 48 hours per week.  The managing director (MD), Mr Kull, said that he worked for 42 hours per week and that the café in Ballymore Eustace opened from 3.00pm until 9.00pm from Wednesday to Sunday.  The payslips submitted by both sides show that he was paid €1,000 gross per week.
4. The parties also disagree about whether the complainant moved to another of the respondent’s cafés in Ardclough, County Kildare in the middle of September 2025. In his submission, the complainant said that he went to Ardclough on September 15th and that he worked there for five days a week from 10.00am until 10.00pm.  In a WhatsApp message he sent to the MD, on Monday, October 20th 2025, the complainant asked for €1,000 for the extra hours he had been working.  He claimed that he had been working 60 hours per week.   Mr Kull replied and said,      

“…now you do 50 hours you get 20 an hour from feb to aug you got 24 per hour at 42 hours.” 

The complainant claimed that he was working 60 hours a week and, when he repeated his request for extra money for working additional hours, Mr Kull replied,

“I will have a look at it for you.”

From these messages, it is apparent that there was a change in the complainant’s hours of work after August 2025 and that he worked longer hours from sometime in September until his last day at work on Sunday, October 19th.    

5. The complainant went on holidays on October 20th. While he was on holidays, the MD discovered that, three days previously, he and the landlord of the premises in Ballymore Eustace, set up a company, Ballymore Woodfired Pizza Limited, in competition with his business.  On October 27th, the MD phoned the complainant and terminated his employment.   
6. Under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the complainant claims that he is owed pay for working 40 extra hours from the middle of September until October 19th 2025, pay in lieu of notice and pay for annual leave and public holidays. The respondent’s position is that the complainant was paid all the wages due to him, and that he was dismissed due to gross misconduct and that he is therefore not entitled to notice.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

7. In his submission in advance of the hearing, the complainant said that, in mid-September 2025, he moved from the café in Ballymore Eustace, to a new location in Ardclough, County Kildare, and that he worked there from 10.00am until 10.00pm. He claims that he worked approximately 40 hours in excess of his contractual hours.  As this amounts to one week’s work, he claims that he is owed wages of €1,000.
8. The complainant also claims an additional payment for working on public holidays and the balance of holidays not taken before his employment was terminated. He did not specify the dates of the public holidays on which he worked, or didn’t work, and he didn’t say how many days’ holidays were left untaken when his employment was terminated.
9. Finally, the complainant’s contract contains a provision for one month’s notice of the termination of his employment. He claims that, because he got no notice of his dismissal, he is entitled to four weeks’ pay, equivalent to €4,000.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Wages Claim

10. The MD’s evidence is that the maximum number of hours that the complainant worked in any week was 42. He was employed based on a contract to work a maximum of 48 hours per week and, as the business opened for six hours per day from 3.00pm until 9.00pm, with very little food preparation done on site, there was no requirement for him to work more than around 42 hours per week. 

Claim for Holiday Pay

11. At the hearing, the respondent provided evidence from the company’s accountant which shows that, from April 7th until October 24th 2025, the complainant accrued 11 days’ holidays. In May and June 2025, he used 10 days’ holidays.  He was paid a week’s pay up to Friday, October 17th and his last day at work was Sunday, October 19th.  He went on holidays the next day, October 20th.  On Tuesday, October 28th, he was paid one week’s pay up to Friday, October 24th.   

Claim for Public Holiday Pay

12. The respondent’s position is that the complainant he is not entitled to pay for public holidays because he didn’t work on public holidays.

Claim for Pay in Lieu of Notice

13. The respondent’s position is that, because the complainant was dismissed due to gross misconduct, he is not entitled to notice.

Findings and Conclusions:

Wages Claim

14. The complainant’s evidence is that from the middle of September 2025 until his last day at work on October 19th, he worked up to 60 hours per week. As the café at Ballymore Eustace only opened for 30 hours per week, it’s difficult to accept that the complainant worked more than 42 hours per week, as stated by the MD.  However, the MD’s reply to the complainant’s request for pay for extra hours indicates that there was a change after August 2024, and that he worked 50 hours per week from then on.  When the complainant wrote back and said that he had been working 60 hours per week, Mr Kull replied and said, “I will have a look at it for you.”  It seems that, around the same time, it came to light that the complainant was setting up a business in competition with the respondent and, after that, his claim for pay for extra hours went nowhere.
15. Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides that, to ground a complaint under the Act, wages must be “properly payable.” The complainant’s contract provides that he was required to work up to 48 hours per week for wages of €1,000 per week.  There is no provision for overtime and no evidence that the complainant and the respondent reached an agreement about pay for working more than 48 hours.  The only evidence is that the MD wrote to the complainant saying he would “have a look at it.”  This is not sufficient to show that the complainant was entitled to pay for extra hours, or that wages for extra hours was “properly payable.”  

Claim for Holiday Pay

16. The complainant was employed by the respondent for six months, and, in accordance with s.19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, he was entitled to 10 days’ holidays. He did not disagree with the respondent’s evidence that he took one day’s holidays in May and nine days in June.  I am satisfied therefore, that he received his wages for the 10 days’ holidays to which he was entitled at the termination of his employment.

Claim for Public Holiday Pay

17. Like most Monday to Friday workers, employees who normally work on public holidays, are entitled to a paid day off on the day of the public holiday. The complainant worked from Wednesday to Sunday and employees like him, who are not normally expected to work on a public holiday, are also entitled to the benefit of the holiday in the form of a paid day off, an additional day’s holidays or an additional day’s pay.  Four public holidays fell in the six months before this complaint was submitted to the WRC: 

Easter Monday, April 21st 2025

The first Monday in May, May 5th

The first Monday in June, June 2nd

The first Monday in August, August 4th.

18. The complainant is also entitled to pay for Monday, October 27th, because, in accordance with s.23(2) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, he was employed in the four weeks before the public holiday on that day. Based on this conclusion, I am satisfied that the complainant is entitled to pay for the five public holidays that fell between April 21st and October 27th 2025.

Claim for Pay in Lieu of Notice

19. I accept the evidence of the respondent that the complainant was dismissed due to gross misconduct. In these circumstances, he is not entitled to notice.

Conclusion

20. I have concluded that the complainant is not entitled to pay for holidays, notice or for working extra hours. I am satisfied that he is entitled to pay for five public holidays that fell between April and October 2025.  In this respect, he is entitled to €1,000, equivalent to one week’s pay.     

Decision:

21. 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.
22. I decide that this complaint is partly well founded. In respect of redress, in accordance with section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (as amended), I am required to direct the respondent to pay compensation as a net amount.  The payslips submitted by the parties at the hearing show that, when the complainant was paid €1,000 per week, his net pay was €813.65.  I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €813.65.

Dated:   29th of June 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

Key Words:

Pay for additional hours, public holiday pay, pay for holidays at termination of employment, pay in lieu of notice.