Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Eoin  Hamilton

Md Electrical Installations Ltd

Representatives

Dylan Loughlin Copacetic Business Solutions

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998

CA-00070426-001

31/03/2025

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

CA-00070426-002

31/03/2025

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

CA-00070426-003

31/03/2025

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

CA-00070426-004

31/03/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00070426-005

31/03/2025

The complainant  gave evidence on affirmation.

Complaint CA-00070426-001. The complainant had to unexpectedly take Aug 26th and 27th 2024 off work to bring his wife to hospital on August 26th and as he had no other childminding support. He informed his supervisor. Later that week, he was subjected to a disciplinary meeting by his employer. When the complainant  became aware that Force Majeure leave was an option, he requested it, but was refused.

Specific Complaint CA-00070426-002 He was made redundant on 4/10/2024 and told he would receive two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. His contract required one month’s notice. This was eventually agreed but he was paid four weeks (156 hours) instead of one month (169 hours)

Specific Complaint CA-00070426-003 Based on his employment between 1st January to 4th November 2024 (not 03/10/2024 as the respondent stated as his finish date) the complainant  believe he  should have been entitled to 130 hours holiday pay. From the records they sent when requested, it seems he was paid for 115 hours and so should have received 15 hours in his final pay. He received 6.5 hours

Specific Complaint CA-00070426-004 The complainant completed Safe Pass training but was refused reimbursement as the required documentation had not been received. He continued to work on jobs for which Safe Pass was required until his redundancy on 04/10/2024

Specific Complaint CA-00070426-005 Redundancy pay had been calculated to 03/10/2024, but this should have been to 03/11/2024 as he was due one month’s notice and so the date 1 month later should have been the date used. Details are in the contract and the redundancy documentation.

The respondent witness Phillip Jordan gave evidence on affirmation.

The Respondent denies most of the complaints in full and raises preliminary objections in respect of jurisdiction and statutory time limits where applicable. Where minor administrative errors were identified, the respondent has acknowledged same and offered payment promptly and transparently, without admission of liability.

Complaint CA-00070426-001

The alleged contraventions occurred on 26th, and 27th. August 2024. Pursuant to section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 and section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, a complaint must be presented within six months of the date of contravention.

The statutory time limit expired on 26th, February 2025. The complaint was lodged on 31st March 2025 and is therefore statute-barred. The Respondent submits that no “reasonable cause” has been established to justify an extension of time. The Complainant was aware of the relevant facts at the time and was actively corresponding with the Respondent well within the limitation period. Explanations relating to administrative delay or difficulties completing the WRC online form do not constitute reasonable cause in law.

The courts do not easily deviate from prescribed statutory time limits for hearing claims and in this regard, with the well-established test as per Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT0425.

Further case law has supported this position, with for example, a miscalculation of one day for the submission of an appeal to the Labour Court, not deemed to represent sufficient reasonable cause to grant the Court jurisdiction to proceed (Galway & Roscommon ETB & Josephine Kenny UDD1624).

The complainant says his computer screen being the wrong size is justification for a delay of 33 days out of time is absurd, particularly when he has a public library just 22 minutes from his house.

Without prejudice to the jurisdictional objection, the respondent denies that the statutory criteria for force majeure leave were met. The Complainant was aware of the relevant circumstances the evening prior and did not request force majeure leave contemporaneously. The leave was not sudden or unforeseeable as required by statute.

The request for force majeure leave was raised only after a disciplinary process had commenced, further undermining the credibility of the claim.

Complaint CA-00070426-002

The Respondent accepts that an administrative error resulted in a shortfall of 7 hours in the calculation of pay in lieu of notice. The Complainant’s contractual entitlement was one month’s notice, calculated as 163 hours. A total of 156 hours was initially paid. The outstanding 7 hours, equating to €189.98 gross, has been acknowledged and offered.

There is no basis for any further claim under this heading.

Complaint CA-00070426-003

This complaint is denied in full. The complainant accrued 177.5 hours of annual leave on a pro-rata basis during his employment. Records demonstrate that all leave taken was paid, and that a balance of 6.5 hours remained at termination. That balance was included in the Complainant’s final pay slip. No outstanding holiday pay remains due.

While payslips do not itemise leave separately the underlying payroll and leave records clearly evidence full compliance with the Act.

 Complaint CA-00070426-004

The respondent submits that this complaint is out of time pursuant to section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. The alleged contravention relates to the non-reimbursement of a Safe Pass course fee, which the Complainant states was incurred in August 2024.

On the complainant’s own case, the receipt was submitted to the Respondent in September 2024, and payment was not made at that time. The alleged contravention therefore crystallised at the first failure to reimburse when payment was sought, namely September 2024.

A failure to reimburse an expense does not constitute a continuing contravention under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Time begins to run from the date payment first falls due. Accordingly, the statutory six-month time limit expired in March 2025.

The complaint was lodged with the Workplace Relations Commission on 31st March 2025, after the expiry of the statutory time limit, and is therefore statute-barred.

Further and in any event, the Respondent submits that the complaint falls outside the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission. Reimbursement of a Safe Pass fee is not “wages” within the meaning of section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, as it is not remuneration payable for work done under a contract of employment.

At its highest, the complaint amounts to an alleged contractual or civil claim for reimbursement of an expense, which does not fall within the scope of the Act. Without prejudice to the above, reimbursement of Safe Pass fees was expressly conditional upon execution of a training agreement.

The complainant did not sign the training agreement despite it being issued to him. In the absence of a signed agreement, no entitlement to reimbursement arose.

The Respondent further notes the absence of any contemporaneous written evidence demonstrating that technical issues with the DocuSign process were raised or pursued at the relevant time.

The complaint should be dismissed in its entirety, as being both out of time and outside the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission.

  Complaint CA-00070426-005 Redundancy Payments Act 1967

The Respondent accepts that a shortfall of €108 (non-taxable) arose due to an administrative error in calculating the effective date of redundancy. This sum has been acknowledged and offered as an inadvertent error.

For the reasons set out above, the Respondent respectfully submits that: complaints CA-00070426-001 and CA-00070426-004 are statute-barred and/or outside the WRC’s jurisdiction, Complaints CA-00070426-003 and CA-00070426-006 are not well-founded, Complaint CA-00070426-002 has been remedied in full and  Complaint CA-00070426-005 has been accepted and resolved.

There were five complaints under employment rights statutes.

Of these two were made outside the statutory time limits. The complaints were received on March 31st 2025 and the alleged breached to which they related occurred on August 26th/27th 2024 in the case of CA-00070426-001 and in respect of CA-00070426-005 in September 2024.  The cognisable period runs from October 1st, 2024.

The complainant accepted that he could not offer any explanation that would excuse the late submission. Accordingly I find that they are ‘out of time’ and not within jurisdiction.

In relation to complaint CA-00070426-002 there had been a measure of agreement that a further payment was due to the complainant which the complainant put at fifteen hours in his final pay. He received 6.5 hours.  The respondent says that this fully discharged what was due.

The parties disagreed over the correct method of calculation of the balance due and whether it should be one calendar month or four weeks. The complainant took his weekly hours, multiplied by 52 and divided by twelve. This gives a higher figure than using four weeks.

The complainant’s contract of employment specifies that it should be one month’s notice, and critically he is paid monthly.

 Accordingly references to a month’s pay or payment in lieu of notice must be construed as a normal month’s pay, excluding any overtime etc. He is therefore entitled to the difference between the payment made and his monthly salary which he put at €352.82 and which I accept.

In relation to complaint CA-00070426-003 there was again some measure of agreement in relation to a shortfall, which the respondent puts at €230.69, and which has been paid, and the complainant at €379.69.

The complainant has not made out a good case on this point turning on the variation in the length of his shifts which was rebutted by the respondent witness. I find that the complaint is not well founded

The respondent has conceded that complaint CA-00070426-005 is well founded, but there has been some difficulty in effecting payment of the sum involved. For the avoidance of doubt I find the complaint to be well founded and direct that the complainant be paid €108 on the basis that it is a redundancy payment and not liable to deductions.

In summary,

Complaints CA-00070426-001 and CA-00070426-005 have not been made within the cognisable period and are not within jurisdiction. In relation to complaint CA-00070426-002 I award the complainant  €352.82.

In relation to complaint CA-00070426-003 I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Complaint CA-00070426-005 is well founded, and I award the complainant €108 on the basis that it is a redundancy payment and not liable to deductions.

Complaints CA-00070426-001 and CA-00070426-004 have not been made within the cognisable period and are not within jurisdiction

Complaint CA-00070426-002 is well founded and I award the complainant  €352.82.

I find that Complaint CA-00070426-003 is not well founded

Complaint CA-00070426-005 is well founded, and I award the complainant €108 on the basis that it is a redundancy payment and not liable to deductions.

Wages,