ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056991
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ludmila Cenusa | Market Square Pizzeria Ltd. |
Representatives | Marius Marosan |
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022 | CA-00068936-001 | 29/01/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00068936-002 | 29/01/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00068936-003 | 29/01/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Employment Permits Act, 2024 | CA-00068936-004 | 29/01/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00068936-005 | 29/01/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00068936-006 | 29/01/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/01/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021, the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, that testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties. Full cross examination of witnesses was allowed.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearings on 19 November 2025 and 8 January 2026, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The first hearing was adjourned when it became obvious that there was a need for an interpreter.
CA-00068936-004 and CA-00068936-006 were withdrawn by the Complainant at the outset of the hearing.
Background:
The Complainant works as a shop pizza chef for the Respondent in a Pizzeria Restaurant. She started working for the Respondent in February 2020. Initially, she worked on average 36 hours per week, over a four-day period. She earns €504 per four-day week. |
CA-00068936-001 Complaint under the Sick Leave Act, 2022.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that she had been absent from work for four days, 15 to18 August 2024, due to an injury she sustained in an accident. She sent a medical certificate to the Respondent, but the Respondent refused to pay her for this certified sick leave, contrary to Section 7 of the 2022 Act. The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing. She stated that she had sent her employer a Medical Certificate covering the period of her absence. When she asked her employer to pay her sick leave pay, she was told that it was not the company’s job to pay her while she was on sick leave. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Mr Daniel Magurean gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent on Oath. Mr Magurean stated that the Complainant had initially sent in a certificate with the wrong name on it and then when she did send in a copy of a certificate with the correct name on it, she sent it to the wrong “messenger” address. He said he requested a copy of a certificate, but it was not forthcoming. Mr Magurean stated that there was no issue, “she can have the pay back”. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 7 of the Sick Pay Act, 2022 states: Statutory sick leave payment 7. (1) An employer shall pay an employee a prescribed daily rate of payment (in this Act referred to as “statutory sick leave payment”) in respect of each statutory sick leave day. (2) The Minister may make regulations, having regard to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) to (g) of section 6 (1), for the purpose of prescribing the daily rate of statutory sick leave payment under subsection (1) which may— (a) specify the percentage rate of an employee’s pay, up to a maximum daily amount, at which statutory sick leave payment will be paid, (b) subject to the maximum daily amount specified in accordance with paragraph (a), specify an allowance in respect of board and lodgings, board only or lodgings only in a case in which such board or lodgings constitute part of the employee’s remuneration calculated at the prescribed rate, or (c) subject to the maximum daily amount specified in accordance with paragraph (a), specify basic pay and any pay in excess of basic pay in respect of shift work, piece work, unsocial hours worked or hours worked on a Sunday, allowances, emoluments, premium pay (or its equivalent), or any other payment as the Minister considers appropriate, that are to be taken into account in the calculation of statutory sick leave payment. From the evidence adduced, I am satisfied the Complainant did provide a medical certificate confirming her absence for the days in question was due to medical reasons. I find the Respondent failed to fulfil the obligations of the 2022 Act by not paying the Complainant her for the period during which she absent on certified sick leave. Section 14(2) of the 2022 Act states: Decision under section 41 or 44 of Act of 2015 14. (1) Where an employee believes that his or her employer has failed to comply with the provisions of this Act, the employee may make a complaint in accordance with Part 4 of the Act of 2015. (2) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Act of 2015 in relation to a complaint or dispute between an employee and an employer concerning the employee’s entitlement under this Act may include an award of compensation (in favour of the employee concerned to be paid by the employer concerned) of such amount, as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances but shall not exceed 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in such manner as may be prescribed. I find an award of two week’s pay, €1008, is just and equitable in the circumstances.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is well founded, I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €1,008 compensation. |
CA-00068936-002 Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that she usually worked on Public Holidays for eight or nine hours. She did not get extra pay for working these days nor did she get a day off in lieu. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent accepted that the Complainant had worked on Public Holidays in the past but did not get paid for so doing. However, she has been paid for working the Public Holidays in 2025. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I find the Complainant did not receive her entitlements as laid out in the 1997 Act and that the Respondent breached the Act. Section 21(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, states: Entitlement in respect of public holidays. 21.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an employee shall, in respect of a public holiday, be entitled to whichever one of the following his or her employer determines, namely— (a) a paid day off on that day, (b) a paid day off within a month of that day, (c) an additional day of annual leave, (d) an additional day’s pay: Provided that if the day on which the public holiday falls is a day on which the employee would, apart from this subsection, be entitled to a paid day off this subsection shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted therefrom. Section 27(3) of the 1997 Act states: A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of a relevant provision shall do one or more of the following, namely: (a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded, (b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision, (c) 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. From the evidence adduced I find the Complainant was never compensated for working on Public Holidays as she should have been. is I find the Act was contravened and compensation is warranted. The continuous nature of the contravention is taken into account in the amount of the award I order to be made. In the circumstances I find an award of 10 days pay, that is €1,260 is just and equitable,
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €1,260 in compensation. |
CA-00068936-003 Complaint under section 7 of the Terms of employment Act, 1994.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that after filing her complaint to the WRC she had her terms of employment altered by the Respondent. The number of days she worked were reduced and her finishing time was moved from 1.00am to 4.00am. According to the Complainant, these changes were made in the knowledge she could not stay that late due to personal circumstances. The Complainant gave evidence to support her case; her hours had been changed and her days reduced after she lodged her complaint with the WRC. In response to questions put to her by the Respondent, the Complainant stated that she had received a contract of employment in 2025. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated that the working hours are on the company website and that the roster can change from week to week. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complaint made regarding hours of work and the days she worked post-date the lodgement of her compliant to the WRC. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is not well founded. |
CA-00068936-005 Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that after filing her complaint with the WRC she was penalised by the Respondent by having her hours slashed and the work pattern altered in order to force her to resign. At the hearing, the Complainant submitted that her hours are back to normal, but she wants her rights to be respected and to be able continue working without fear of being penalised for invoking her rights. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated that all staff are aware of the roster and can be moved to the night shift if necessary. All employees are treated equally. The Respondent stated that the Complainant’s hours were cut because he was not sure what days she wanted to work. Although he always wants to work with staff, he cannot all staff the hours they want. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complaint made regarding hours of work and the days she worked post-date the lodgement of her compliant to the WRC. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 13-02-2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Public Holidays, Sick Leave, contract of employment. |