ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058346
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ramazan Yildirim | Komfort Kare, Health Care Company |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Hugh Hegarty of Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
Complaint:
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-00070511-001 | 03/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/11/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 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.
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 normally be in Public, 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 present. The legal peril of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
The issue of anonymisation in the published finding of the WRC was considered by the Parties but not deemed necessary.
Background:
The issues in contention concern a Home Care Assistant and a Home Care Service Company. The complaints were primarily, at the date of first submission of the Complaint (3rd April 2025) related to Travel expenses between Client sites and Bank Holiday Payments. A more extensive submission was lodged on the 29th September 2025 covering an alleged constructive Dismissal, Excessive Working Times, Lack of Career Progression, Lack of Flexible Working Arrangements and a difference over a Training Course at an External provider. The employment began on the 16th February 2022 and allegedly ended on the 21st February 2025 - this was a date strongly disputed by the Respondent Employer. The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been, initially, €14.50 per hour for a working week of variable duration but often allegedly exceeding 40 hours. |
1: Opening Issues – Legal Points – Cognisable Period /Legislation.
The Complaint, on the Compliant form of the 3rd April 2025 was under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991. It concerned two issues, the rate for Travel Expenses between clients and an alleged failure to pay for Bank Holidays. Both complaints had time reference dates going back to year 2022. Supplementary material was provided in support of the Payment of Wages Complaint on the 15th April 2025.
In a later Written Submission dated the 25th September 2025, (almost 6 months later) the Complainant, detailed, in the Text supplied, some additional complaints - covering an alleged Constructive Dismissal, Excessive Working Times, Lack of Career Progression, Lack of Flexible Working Arrangements and a difference over a Training Course at an External provider. The time range covered as far back as far as August 2022.
None of these complaints referenced any specific Legislation, other than the Payment of Wages Act,1991, that the Respondent was allegedly in breach of.
1:1 Respondent arguments
The Complaint was as set out on the 3rd April 2025 under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. That Act and the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 provide for a “Cognisable period” of six months period to lodging the complaint – in this case back to the 4th October 2024. The Respondent pointed out that in this period there was only one possible Bank Holiday Breach - the 17th March 2025 - all other Public dates having been paid. The Respondent also referred to the other 8 complaints as not having a proper statutory basis. In essence a wide-ranging narrative text submitted almost 6 months later is not a proper complaint that a Respondent can be properly expected to rebut. Even allowing for this procedural point most of the material in the supplementary September submission were equally outside the “cognisable period” as it was argued that they were out of time.
In addition, the Respondent argued that ignorance of WRC Procedures, the Web Site etc was not a valid excuse for a broad ranging narrative as opposed to specific complaints lodged under relevant Acts.
1:2 Complainant Arguments
The Complainant had experienced some personal/family issues which had delayed the submission of the supplementary submission. He had secured new Employment on the in mid-Summer of 2025 which had become his principal focus. His submission of September was his complete complaint.
1:3 Adjudicator view
It is well understood that the WRC Complaint form is not a Statutory Document but has been described as an “Administrative convenience”. Additional evidential material can be submitted in support of the initial form. It would not be uncommon for Parties to request an Adjudicator to amend the complaint form and indeed add further complaints under other Legislation. Normally this requires the Consent of both Parties and the agreement of the Adjudicator. Failing mutual consent Parties can submit additional Complaint forms on the WRC website.
However, the “common sense” maxim has to apply here. Eight additional complaints that could easily have been lodged on the WRC Website, under relevant legislation, in the almost 6-month period to the 25th September severely test the Common-Sense view. Claiming external pressures etc is not a proper justification. The Citizens Advice Website and or the WRC Public information Service could easily have been consulted.
Accordingly, the Adjudication view is that the Complaint can only proceed on the basis of the submitted complaint form of the 3rd April 2025 but allowing the supporting details (Overtime and On Call Allegations) of the 15th April be included.
In particular, the Constructive Dismissal complaint, in the September Text, is not included.
The Cognisable Period is 4th October 2024 to the 3rd April 2025. There was no sustainable “Reasonable Cause” advanced to justify an extension to a further six months.
2: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
2:1 Public Holidays The Complainant listed 8 bank holidays he maintained that he was not paid for – he contested 28th October 2024 and the 17th March 2025 as being unpaid. 2:2 Travel Allowance – difference in mileage rate between 25 Cents and 10 cents. The initial Contract of Employment gave a rate of € 00: 25 cent per mile. The Respondent only paid €00:10 per mile in breach of the Contract. 2:3 On call payments. The Complainant alleged that he was not paid the On-call Allowance for all of 2024 and his period of employment in 2025. 2:4 Overtime payments. In many weeks, during the Cognisable Period., the Complainant worked well in excess of a 40-hour week but received no overtime payments. He submitted Pay Slips in evidence of his hours. |
3: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
3:1 Public Holidays The Respondent submitted evidence that all Public holidays, with the exception of the 17th March 2025 were properly paid. The Respondent indicated a willing ness to Pay €203 in lieu of the March Bank Holiday. 3:2 Travel Allowance The Respondent accepted that the rate of €00:25 cents per mile was an administrative error, an overstated rate, in the initial contract of employment. It should have been €00:10 cents per mile. Once discovered it was corrected and a lump sum of €766.88 was paid to the Complainant on the 7th March 2025. This was an admission that the higher rate should have applied until the error was discovered. The rate was now clearly stated to be €00:10 cent per mile. 3:3 On Call Payments The Respondent argued that the basis for an On-Call Payment was that an employee had to be available for On Call work -i.e. not already at work. In the context of the Home Carer situation On Call really only arises when a regular Carer, with a specific Client list, calls in sick at very short notice. A vulnerable Client cannot be left unattended so any staff member not already at work can be called for. In an analysis of the Complainant’s very vague and imprecise claims the Respondent pointed out that the On call could not have been worked as the Complainant was already working with his regular clients. The Complainant had not provided any specific details to allow the Complaint to be properly rebutted or indeed studied to ascertain the facts. 3:4 Overtime Payments The Respondent pointed out that Overtime Payments are not provided for in the Payment of Wages Act,1991. Furthermore, the Contract of Employment stated that “additional Hours” will only be paid at “Basic Rate.” Accordingly, no Overtime Payments re due to the Complainant as they are “Not properly payable” as provide for in the Act.
|
4: Findings and Conclusions:
4:1 Legislation / Legal position The Complaints fall clearly with the Payment of Wages Act,1991. Section 1 – Interpretation "wages", in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including— (a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and (b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice: Provided however that the following payments shall not be regarded as wages for the purposes of this definition: (i) any payment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment. (Under line by Adjudication Officer)
However, Legislation not withstanding all cases rest on their own evidence which is examined below.
4:2 Review of Evidence Presented
4:2:1 Public Holidays are covered. However, as the Respondent presented evidence of payment for all Public Holidays save the 17th March 2025 for which they gave an undertaking to the Adjudicator to pay, the complaint has no real grounds for progress.
4:2:2 Travel allowance This is not covered by the Act and cannot be considered. See underlined Section of Act above.
4:2:3 Overtime The contract of Employment does not provide for any Overtime Payments. Unfortunately for the Complainant this can only be resolved in direct collective bargaining with the Respondent Employer. The Adjudication claim cannot proceed.
4:2:4 On Call Payments As there was very little precise evidence presented here it was impossible to form a concise judgement. The complaint cannot proceed in a vacuum. It has to be deemed inadmissible.
4:2:5 General Comment on other issues raised.
As discussed above in Section 1 -Opening issues – the numerous other complaints especially the alleged Constructive Dismissal are not withing the remit of a Payment Of Wages Complaint.
|
5: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
CA: 00070511-001
This Complaint (including the elements regarding Overtime, Expenses, On Call and Public Holidays) has to be deemed, as set out above, Legally Not Properly Founded.
It has to be deemed to have failed.
Dated: 12.03.2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act,1991. Public Holidays, Expenses, Overtime. |