Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Gabriel Piedrabuena

Paulo Ribeiro S Limited Wasabi

Representatives

N/A

N/A

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-00072133-001

05/06/2025

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

CA-00072133-003

05/06/2025

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

CA-00072133-004

05/06/2025

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

CA-00072344-001

11/06/2025

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

CA-00072344-003

11/06/2025

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

CA-00072344-004

11/06/2025

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

CA-00072344-005

11/06/2025

The Complainant had submitted duplicate complaint forms and so he confirmed that complaint numbers CA00072344-001; CA00072344-003 and CA00072344-004 were withdrawn.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a chef from 5th March 2025 to 1st June 2025 at a rate of €15 per hour. He has submitted these complaints as he alleges a number of breaches under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The Complainant gave evidence by way of civil affirmation. The witnesses for the Respondent, Jefferson Reis and Fabiana Ribeiro, gave evidence following administration of a religious oath.

An interpreter was also present and took the Interpreter’s affirmation.

The Complainant stated that he commenced employment with the Respondent on 5th March 2025 and that this employment ended on 1st June 2025. He said that he lodged his WRC complaint on 4th June 2025, but due to an issue with email confirmation, he submitted the complaint twice on the same date, receiving two reference numbers: CA‑00072344 and CA‑00072133. At the hearing, the Complainant confirmed that he was withdrawing complaint numbers CA00072344-001; CA00072344-003 and CA00072344-004 as a result.

The Complainant asserts that throughout his employment he repeatedly asked the Respondent to register him with Revenue and to provide payslips, but this was not done until 4th June 2025, after his employment had ended. He added that the Respondent only registered him from April 2025 onward, and not for March 2025, during which he had already been working there. For this alleged breach he is claiming €3,030.

The Complainant further claims that he worked approximately 202 hours in March 2025 while unregistered, which he describes as “black work”. He is seeking €2,000 compensation in respect of this issue.

He also stated that he performed 128 hours of Sunday work and that he is owed an additional 50% premium on those hours. He claims €960 under this heading.

The Complainant further claimed payment for unpaid holiday entitlements, calculated as 8% of 580 total hours worked, amounting to €696.

He said that he received only six days’ verbal notice of the termination of his employment, which he says fell short of his statutory entitlement of one week’s notice, based on his average week of approximately 45 hours. He claims €675 in respect of notice pay.

Finally, the Complainant seeks €500 for what he describes as moral damages arising from stress and the cumulative impact of the matters set out above.

In total, the Complainant is claiming for compensation in the amount of €7,861.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant was engaged on a trial basis and was officially registered with the Respondent on 8th March 2025, at an agreed hourly rate of €15, which included the Respondent’s “Sunday Premium”. The Respondent said that the Complainant was verbally notified one week before the end of his rostered period that he would not be retained. It was stated that he had been notified on the Monday and that his employment terminated the next Sunday, following that Sunday’s shift. The Respondent decided not to offer a permanent position due to communication difficulties, asserting that the Complainant had limited English and Portuguese, which hindered understanding of workplace policies and operational standards.

The Respondent acknowledged a delay in processing the Complainant’s March 2025 hours, explaining that discrepancies in the Complainant’s clock‑in records required the Respondent to manually review and verify the hours together with the Complainant and this caused the delay. The Respondent stated that all other payments were made as required, and that full supporting documentation—payslips, bank payment confirmations, and a signed letter from the Complainant (in English and Spanish) acknowledging the hours worked and confirming payment—had been provided to the Commission.

The Respondent further noted that during reconciliation it identified an omission of holiday hours for St Patrick’s Day and Easter, which was subsequently corrected. An adjusted payslip and payment were issued to the Complainant, and the Respondent asserts that all contractual and statutory obligations were fulfilled.

The Complainant, when giving evidence, said that during his three month employment with the Respondent there were a number of irregularities. It took weeks for him to be registered on Revenue, he was not sent payslips and he was not paid a Sunday premium. He said that his dismissal was only verbal and not in writing as required by the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

He said that all of these irregularities left him feeling very unsafe. He said that his claim was about the irregularities; the payslips, the Sunday premium and the bank holidays.

The Respondent said that, regarding the Sunday premium, the Complainant received a higher flat rate of pay which reflected the Sunday hours and that this is allowed under the legislation.

Regarding the complaints of holiday pay, the Respondent acknowledged that there had been a shortfall and said that this was due to the Complainant’s failure to clock in and out appropriately, despite being instructed on this a number of times. A full review was carried out and this was remedied, with the full amount paid to the Complainant, before the complaint form was even received. It was stated that everything had been checked and explained to the Complainant multiple times in both English and Spanish. The Respondent submitted a letter signed by the Complainant which acknowledged this.

The Respondent also said that a payslip was physically handed to the Complainant every week and that he is not owed any further monies. The Respondent said that he was given one weeks notice, he was given notice on a Monday with his employment due to end the following Sunday.

Complaints under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00072133-001 – Sunday hours

Section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 states as follows:

(1) An employee who is required to work on a Sunday (and the fact of his or her having to work on that day has not otherwise been taken account of in the determination of his or her pay) shall be compensated by his or her employer for being required so to work by the following means, namely—

(a) by the payment to the employee of an allowance of such an amount as is reasonable havingregard to all the circumstances, or

(b) by otherwise increasing the employee’s rate of pay by such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(c) by granting the employee such paid time off from work as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(d) by a combination of two or more of the means referred to in the preceding paragraphs.

The above section sets out that if an employee is required to work on a Sunday, and their normal pay does not already include something extra for Sunday work, the employer must give them additional compensation. This compensation can take different forms. The employer may pay the employee an extra allowance, increase their rate of pay for Sunday work, give them paid time off to make up for it, or use a combination of these options. Whatever form it takes, the compensation must be reasonable in light of all the circumstances.

The Respondent in this case gave evidence that the hourly rate of pay received by the Complainant of €15 takes account of the Sunday premium. The Respondent clearly stated that the higher rate of pay was to cover Sunday work. This was clear, direct evidence that the intent of the excess of the rate of pay over the minimum wage was the means by which the rate of pay took account of the obligation to work on Sundays. This is a permissible method of compensating an employee for Sunday work. I note that the national minimum wage during the Complainant’s period of employment was €13.50. I accept the Respondent’s evidence that the Sunday premium was included in the Complainant’s rate of pay.

On that basis, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00072133-003 – Annual Leave entitlement

Section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 relates to annual leave and it states:

(1) Subject to the First Schedule (which contains transitional provisions in respect of the leave years 1996 to 1998), an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this Act referred to as “annual leave”) equal to—

(a) 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment),

(b) one-third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours, or

(c) 8 per cent. of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks):

Provided that if more than one of the preceding paragraphs is applicable in the case concerned and the period of annual leave of the employee, determined in accordance with each of those paragraphs, is not identical, the annual leave to which the employee shall be entitled shall be equal to whichever of those periods is the greater.

This means that an employee is entitled to paid annual leave each year. The amount of leave they get depends on how many hours they work during the leave year. If they work at least 1,365 hours, they are entitled to four working weeks of annual leave, unless they changed jobs during that year. If they do not reach that threshold, they can instead earn one‑third of a working week for each month in which they work at least 117 hours. Another way of calculating it is to give the employee 8 per cent of all the hours they worked in that year, up to a maximum of four working weeks. If more than one of these methods applies and they produce different results, the employee is entitled to whichever gives them the greater amount of annual leave.

In this case, the Complainant accepted that he had received the payment for his annual leave. Evidence in the form of a payslip was submitted by the Respondent to vouch this payment. The payslip, month ending 31st May 2025, shows holiday pay of €659 to the Complainant.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant has received his statutory entitlement and for that reason I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00072133-004 – Public Holiday entitlement

Section 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 states that:

(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.

This section explains what an employee is entitled to for a public holiday. For each public holiday, the employer must choose one option from a set list. The employee must receive either the public holiday as a paid day off, a paid day off taken within a month of the holiday, an extra day added to their annual leave, or an extra day’s pay. However, if the public holiday falls on a day when the employee would already have had a paid day off, the option of giving the day itself as a paid day off is removed, and the employer must choose one of the other three options instead.

Similar to the complaint above, the Complainant accepted at the hearing that he had received payment for the public holidays that he worked during his employment. Evidence in the form of a payslip was submitted by the Respondent to vouch the payment. The payslip, for month ending 30th June 2025, shows payment for May Day, St. Patricks Day and Easter Monday.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant has received his statutory entitlement and for that reason I find that this complaint is not well founded.

Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 – CA-00072344-005

The narrative under this complaint on the form submitted by the Complainant states: “I did not receive written notification”. In written submissions dated 4th June 2025 the Complainant wrote:

“Lack of notice:

I was verbally notified only six days before the end of my contract, breaching the legal notice period corresponding to one week's average work (approximately 45 hours). I claim payment for that week.

Claimed amount: €675

Legal basis: Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973-2005.”

During the hearing, the Respondent accepted that verbal notice only had been given, however it was stated that a full weeks notice was given as required. The Respondent said that notice was given on a Monday and the Complainant worked up to and including Sunday. The Complainant said that he worked for 6 days after receiving verbal notice and accepted that he was paid for those days.

The Complainant identified the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 in his complaint form, but in submissions identified the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. I am satisfied that this is the correct legislation under which the Complainant was bringing his complaint, and that the Respondent was on notice that this was the case.

Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 provides for a minimum period of notice when an employment is being terminated. In this case, the applicable notice period is one week. “Week” is defined in the Act, it states at section 1 that ““week” means any period of seven consecutive days”. Therefore, the notice period is for the ordinary meaning of the word “week”, and does not mean an “average work” week as stated by the Complainant. 

In the context of statutory minimum notice, a one‑week notice period amounts to seven consecutive days. Where notice is communicated on a Monday, that day is treated as the first day of the notice period, and the remaining six days run consecutively through to the following Sunday. By the close of Sunday, the full statutory week of notice has been completed. This follows directly from the statutory definition of a week in the Act, which, as set out above, provides that a week means any period of seven consecutive days.

The Complainant did not identify any section of this Act which provides that the said notice must be in writing.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant received his statutory entitlement of one weeks notice and consequently this complaint is not well founded.

Income Tax Acts 1967 – 2024

In written submissions, the Complainant stated that he was seeking €3,030 because, despite repeated requests to be registered with Revenue this was not done until 4th June 2025 after his contract finished.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 states that an employee may present a complaint to the Director General that their employer has contravened a provision specified in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 5 of that Act. The Director General shall then refer the complaint for adjudication by an adjudication officer. This is how I have come to address the complaints above.

Schedule 5 sets out the legislation that may be considered in the context of these proceedings. It includes, for example, the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 addressed above. However, it does not include the Income Tax Acts cited by the Complainant. As such, I do not believe that I have jurisdiction to make any awards under this legislation.

Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015

The Complainant, in written submission dated 4th June 2025, stated that he wished to claim for moral damages in the amount of €500 due to the stress and harm caused by the aforementioned situations and that his legal basis for this claim is the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015.

He also stated that he was claiming for €2,000 under the same Act because he had not been legally registered with Revenue.

The Employment Equality Act, 1998 (as amended) is an Act which is intended to address instances of discrimination in the workplace. The Complainant has not identified any of the protected grounds under which he could claim relief or offered any evidence or grounds whatsoever upon which to base a complaint under the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

I am satisfied that, despite naming this legislation in his written submissions, the Complainant has not advanced any case which I could consider to be a breach of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003

Similarly, in submissions of the same date, the Complainant stated that he was claiming €2,000 compensation under the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act, 2003 because he had not been legally registered with Revenue which constitutes unregistered employment. The Complainant has not identified which section of this Act he is alleging was breached and I am unaware, based on the evidence provided, how the Respondent is alleged to have contravened this Act.

I am therefore satisfied that, despite naming this legislation in his written submissions, the Complainant has not identified any alleged breach of the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act, 2003.

For the reasons stated above, I find that these complaints are not well founded.

Annual leave – public holidays – Sunday hours – minimum notice