Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Hajar  Aqqa

Beauty and Beef Limited [amended on consent on first day of hearing]

Representatives

Mr Frank Drumm BL instructed by Mr Anthony Collier Solicitor  Collier Law

The Respondent did not attend and was not represented at hearing. 

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00064858-001

18/07/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00064858-002 WITHDRAWN

18/07/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00064858-003 WITHDRAWN

18/07/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00064858-004 WITHDRAWN

18/07/2024

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

CA-00064858-005 WITHDRAWN

18/07/2024

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

CA-00064858-006

18/07/2024

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

CA-00064858-007

18/07/2024

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

CA-00064858-008

18/07/2024

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

CA-00064858-009  WITHDRAWN

18/07/2024

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

CA-00064858-010 WITHDRAWN

18/07/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00064858-011

18/07/2024

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

CA-00064858-012

18/07/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00064858-013 WITHDRAWN

18/07/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00064858-014 WITHDRAWN

18/07/2024

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

CA-00064858-015

18/07/2024

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

CA-00064858-016

18/07/2024

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

CA-00065059-001

29/07/2024

This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 18/07/2024.   The Complainant alleges contravention by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statutes in relation to her employment with the Respondent.  The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place initially 12/09/2024.  The aforesaid hearing was attended by the Complainant and her representatives together with the Respondent and their representatives. 

The case was set down for a second hearing on 21/02/2025 attended by both parties and their representatives.  Prior to the commencement of hearing it was advised by the Complainant representative that matters had been settled between the parties and accordingly, the hearing did not resume on the day. 

It was agreed that the file would be withdrawn on 04/04/2025. 

The Complainant representative emailed the WRC on 28/03/2025 seeking to reinstate the within complaints and seeking the matter to be set down and listed for hearing with said hearing taking place on 01/04/2026. 

The Complainant and her representatives attended at hearing on 01/04/2026.  The Respondent did not attend and was not represented at hearing. 

The Complainant was employed as a counter assistant in a takeaway restaurant at all material times.  The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 20/01/2024 such employment terminating by way of dismissal on 23/03/2024.  The Complainant worked 50 hours per week for which she received gross pay weekly €320. 00 for the duration of her employment namely 8 weeks and 6 days.    

CA-00064858-001 complaint pursuant to section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The Complainant was unfairly dismissed following the raising of concerns of receiving payment below the minimum wage.  The Complainant’s uncontested evidence is that the Respondent called her and said to her “you don’t come back your bread with us is finished.”   

CA-00064858-006 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submits she did not get breaks. 

CA-00064858-007 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submits she did not receive her paid holiday / annual leave entitlement on termination. 

CA-00064858-008 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submits she was not compensated for the loss of her public holiday entitlement on leaving. 

CA-00064858-011 complaint pursuant to section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

The Complainant submits she did not receive the national minimum rate of pay. 

CA-00064858-012 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submits she was not compensated for working on a Sunday.

CA-00064858-015 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submits she was required to work more than the maximum permitted number of hours. 

CA-00064858-016 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submits she was penalised for raising concerns over the Organisation of Working Time Act. 

CA-00065059-001 complaint pursuant to section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant submits she was not paid for the first two weeks of her employment which were described as training weeks. 

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing.  

In circumstances where I am satisfied that the Respondent was properly served with notice of the date, time and venue of the adjudication hearing and having waited some time to accommodate a late arrival and where I formally opened and closed the adjudication hearing on 01/04/2026 I will proceed to set out hereunder my findings and conclusions.

CA-00064858-001 complaint pursuant to section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

I note the Complainant submits she was dismissed for raising concerns that she was receiving payment below the national minimum wage.  I not the Complainant has less than 12 months service. 

The Relevant Law

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015 (the “Acts”) provides as follows:-

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal, unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

Section 6(6) of the Acts states as follows:

“In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly of mainly from one or more grounds specified in subsection (4) of this section or that there were other substantial grounds for justifying the dismissal”.

Section 6(7) of the Acts provides that in determining whether a dismissal is unfair, regard may be had:-

“(a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and

(b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in section 14(1) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice …”

Section 2(1)(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act states the Act shall not apply to:

“an employee (other than a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year's continuous service with the employer who dismissed him and whose dismissal does not result wholly or mainly from the matters referred to in section 6 (2) (f) of this Act” [emphasis added]

However, it is noted the requirement for one year’s continuous employment is excluded in certain circumstances.  To this end, the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 provides as follows:

Prohibition of victimisation of employee by employer.

36.—(1) An employer shall not cause or suffer any action prejudicial to an employee for the employee having—

(a) exercised or having proposed to exercise a right under this Act,

(b) in good faith opposed or proposed to oppose by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act, or

(c) become, or in future will or might become, entitled in accordance with this Act to remuneration at an hourly rate of pay that on average is not less than the national minimum rate of pay, or a particular percentage of that rate of pay.

(2) Dismissal of an employee in contravention of subsection (1) shall be deemed to be an unfair dismissal of the employee within the meaning and for the purposes of section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 1993 (but without prejudice to sections 2 to 5 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, except that it is not necessary for the employee to have at least one year’s continuous service with the employer and that Act shall apply as if the Worker Protection (Regular Part-Time Employees) Act, 1991, were repealed in relation to the number of hours an employee is normally expected to work for the purposes of that Act) and those Acts, with the necessary modifications, shall apply accordingly. [emphasis added] 

The Relevant Facts

The Complainant submits she was dismissed by what’s app audio call on the night of 23/03/2024 during which she was told not to come back and that she was fired. 

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted by the Complainant and the uncontested oral evidence adduced at hearing on oath.  I have also considered the non-participation by the Respondent in these proceedings. 

It is settled law the burden of proof lies with a respondent to demonstrate that the dismissal of an employee was fair.  In circumstances where no evidence was provided by or on behalf of the Respondent the only legal conclusion I can come to is that the Respondent has failed to meet the burden of proof in the absence of any effort by the Respondent to justify or explain the reasons for dismissal which leads to a finding that the dismissal is deemed substantively unfair. 

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing and no evidence was proffered in discharge of the burden/onus of proof on the Respondent to show that the dismissal was not unfair.   

Furthermore, the Complainant gave uncontested testimony of the circumstances of her dismissal.

There was no process to outline the grounds of her dismissal other than the phone call which resulted in her immediate dismissal.  There was no opportunity for the Complainant to understand the reasons for her dismissal nor any opportunity to appeal the decision.  To say that the dismissal was procedurally unfair would be an understatement.  I find the Respondent failed to employ even the most rudimentary modicum of fair procedures.  

I am cognisant of the case of Waterford Health Park Pharmacy ltd t/a Stratus Healthcare v Aoife Foley UDD [2025] 36 ELR 117 wherein it was found as follows: 

“ …. A key fact in this case, and one which has been conceded by the respondent, is that there was not a scintilla of procedural fairness in the manner in which the claimant was dismissed from her employment.”  [emphasis added]

On the evidence before me and for the reasons set out above I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed within the meaning of the Acts. 

Redress

In terms of remedy in accordance with the provisions of section 7(1) of the Acts I am obliged to determine which of the three forms of redress open to me is most appropriate having regard to the circumstances of this case.  I take the view that compensation is the appropriate redress in this case. 

In awarding compensation, I am obliged to award a “just and equitable” amount of compensation in the full circumstances of the case. 

Section 7 of the Acts, in its relevant parts, provides:

“(1) Where an employee is dismissed and the dismissal is an unfair dismissal, the employee shall be entitled to redress consisting of whichever of the following the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers appropriate having regard to all the circumstances:

…. (c) (i) if the employee incurred any financial loss attributable to the dismissal, payment to him by the employer of such compensation in respect of the loss (not exceeding in amount 104 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of this Act) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(ii) if the employee incurred no such financial loss, payment to the employee by the employer of such compensation (if any, but not exceeding in amount 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated as aforesaid) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances,

and the reference in the foregoing paragraphs to an employer shall be construed, in a case where the ownership of the business of the employer changes after the dismissal, as references to the person who, by virtue of the change, becomes entitled to such ownership.

 (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining the amount of compensation payable under that subsection regard shall be had to—

(a) the extent (if any) to which the financial loss referred to in that subsection was attributable to an act, omission or conduct by or on behalf of the employer,

(b) the extent (if any) to which the said financial loss was attributable to an action, omission or conduct by or on behalf of the employee,

(c) the measures (if any) adopted by the employee or, as the case may be, his failure to adopt measures, to mitigate the loss aforesaid,

[(d) the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in subsection (1) of section 14 of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice relating to procedures regarding dismissal approved of by the Minister,

(e) the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the said section 14, and

(f) the extent (if any) to which the conduct of the employee (whether by act or omission) contributed to the dismissal.

(2A) In calculating financial loss for the purposes of subsection (1), payments to the employee—

(a) under the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 in respect of any period following the dismissal concerned, or

(b) under the Income Tax Acts arising by reason of the dismissal,

shall be disregarded.

…. (3) In this section—

“financial loss”, in relation to the dismissal of an employee, includes any actual loss and any actual loss and any estimated prospective loss of income attributable to the dismissal and the value of any loss or diminution, attributable to the dismissal, of the rights of the employee under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to [2014], or in relation to superannuation;

“remuneration” includes allowances pay and benefits in lieu of or in addition to pay.”

I am mindful of the Labour Court decision in the case of Obasanjo Olajubu v WasdellEurope [UDD 2449] where it was highlighted that:

”An award of compensation must be in an amount that is ‘just and equitable in all the circumstances”.

I take into account section 7 (2) (b) and (f) and I find the Complainant made no contribution to the termination of her employment.  I take into consideration section 7(2)(a) and I find the Respondent acted unreasonably in the summary dismissal of the Complainant.

I find the manner of the dismissal of the Complainant which was undertaken in what can only be described as a procedural vacuum without any regard whatsoever to fair procedures as I take into consideration section 7(2)(b) and (f). 

I note there was no evidence presented by the Complainant to establish that she suffered a financial loss or to establish that she made any attempt to mitigate such loss as I take into consideration section 7(2)(c).

Having regard to all the circumstances I consider that compensation of €5,080.00 gross is just and equitable. 

As this is compensation for loss of remuneration arising from the Complainant’s unfair dismissal it is subject to taxation in the normal way. 

CA-00064858-006 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submits she did not get breaks. 

The Relevant Law

Section 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 provides as follows at section 12:

“12.— (1) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes.

(2) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 6 hours without allowing him or her a break of at least 30 minutes; such a break may include the break referred to in subsection (1).

(3) The Minister may by regulations provide, as respects a specified class or classes of employee, that the minimum duration of the break to be allowed to such an employee under subsection (2) shall be more than 30 minutes (but not more than 1 hour).

(4) A break allowed to an employee at the end of the working day shall not be regarded as satisfying the requirement contained in subsection (1) or (2).”

“Rest period” is defined in Section 2(1) of the 1997 Act as “any time that is not working time”.  

Thereafter, “working time” is defined as any time that the employee is either, “at his or her place of work or at this or her employer’s disposal” and “be carrying on or performing the activities or duties of his or her work.”

In the case of Tribune Printing and Publishing Group v. Graphical Print and Media Union [DWT 6/2004] the Labour Court held that not only is there an obligation on an employer to ensure that their employees receive rest break, but also that:

“…employees could take rest breaks if they wished and not putting in place proper procedures to ensure that the employee receives those breaks thus protecting his health and safety, does not discharge that duty.”

It is noted the Labour Court set out the employer obligations to have proper procedures in place for employees to take appropriate breaks.

It is the Complainant’s case that she did get food to eat when she was at work and she could sit down to eat it but if a customer came into the shop she would have to go to the till to attend to the customer.  It would appear from the uncontested evidence of the Complainant that she was provided with food but I am not satisfied that she was allowed an uninterrupted set period of time off when she was in the workplace as is required by the legislation.

It is noted the right to rest breaks is derived from Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (the “Working Time Directive”).

Applying Von Colson & Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR1891 compensation should be ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive.’

Section 27(3) of the OWTA provides that compensation of such amount as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding two years’ remuneration, may be awarded.

I find this complaint to be well-founded based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant.   I decide it is just and equitable to require the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €1,500.00 for the contravention of a statutory right.

For the avoidance of doubt, this amount is not in the nature of remuneration and should not be treated as such for the purposes of tax or other deductions. 

CA-00064858-007 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submits she did not receive her paid holiday / annual leave entitlement on termination. 

The Relevant Law

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.

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant I find this complaint to be well-founded. 

I note that the right to annual leave is derived from the Working Time Directive.   Applying Von Colson & Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR1891 compensation should be ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive.’

Pursuant to section 27(3) of the OWTA, I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant 36 hours which should have been paid to her at termination in the amount of €457.20 gross (€12.70 x 36). 

I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €1,000.00 for the breach of the Complainant’s statutory rights.  For the avoidance of doubt, this amount is not in the nature of remuneration and should not be treated as such for the purposes of tax or other deductions. 

I am satisfied this award is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA-00064858-008 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submits she was not compensated for the loss of her public holiday entitlement on leaving. 

The Relevant Law

Section 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the “1997 Act”) provides for entitlement in respect of public holidays in relevant part as follows:

(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 OWTA provides that compensation of such amount as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding two years’ remuneration, may be awarded.  It is noted the right to public holiday pay is not derived from an EU Directive.  Accordingly, Van Colson dos not apply. 

The Complainant’s uncontested evidence was that she received no additional pay or time off in lieu, for public holidays.  I note there were two public holidays during the Complainant’s tenure of employment. 

I find this complaint to be well-founded.  Pursuant to section 27(3) of the OWTA I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant in the amount of €254.00 gross for the financial loss. 

I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €200.00 for the breach of the Complainant’s statutory right.  For the avoidance of doubt, this amount is not in the nature of remuneration and should not be treated as such for the purposes of tax or other deductions. 

I am satisfied this award is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA-00064858-011 complaint pursuant to section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

The Complainant submits she did not receive the national minimum rate of pay.   The Complainant submits that she was not paid in accordance with the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 as amended (the “NMWA”).  The Complainant submits that she was paid €320 for a 50-hour week.  I note the Complainant’s Representative wrote to the Respondent in compliance with section 23 of the NMWA, requesting a statement of the Complainant’s average hourly rate of pay on two occasions namely on 11 February 2024 and 26 June 2024. 

The Relevant Law

Section 24 of the Act (where relevant) provides:

“24. Disputes about entitlement to minimum hourly rate of pay

(1) For the purposes of this section, a dispute between an employee and his or her employer as to the employee's entitlements under this Act exists where the employee and his or her employer cannot agree on the appropriate entitlement of the employee to pay in accordance with this Act resulting in an alleged underpayment to the employee.

(2) The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission shall not entertain a dispute in relation to an employee's entitlements under this Act and, accordingly, shall not refer the dispute to an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015—

(a) unless the employee—

(i) has obtained under section 23 a statement of his or her average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period, or

(ii) having requested the statement, has not been provided with it within the time limited by that section for the employer to supply the information,

and a period of 6 months (or such longer period, not exceeding 12 months, as the adjudication officer may allow) has not elapsed since that statement was obtained or time elapsed, as the case may be…”

I note the within complaint was filed with the WRC on 18/07/2024 which is within the 6-month period from the date of delivery of the section 23 request.    

The National Minimum Wage Act 2000 (as amended) falls under the Schedule 5 of Workplace Relation Act 2015 (hereafter referred to as “the WRA”). As regards limitation periods these are set out in Section 41 Subsections (6) (7) and (8) which [where relevant to the present claim] provides respectively as follows:

(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

(7) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a dispute referred to him or her under this section if—

“(d) in the case of a dispute relating to the entitlement of an employee under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 , it has been referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on-

(i) the date on which the employee obtains a statement of his or her average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period in accordance with section 23 of that Act,

(ii) in circumstances where that statement is not provided having been requested by the employee to be provided to him or her, the day after the date of expiration of the time within which that statement was required to be provided by the employer in accordance with that section,”

It is noted the NMWA imposes a requirement that an employee make a request for a section 23 statement and a claim under this Act cannot proceed unless this is done.  Where it is done, a limitation period starts to run such that a dispute cannot be referred for adjudication beyond a period of six months from the date or receipt of the response or the elapse of four week from when the request is made. 

It is noted the date of the within referral is 18/07/2024 which is three weeks and one day from the date of the request.  The time period at issue is associated with the section 23 request; the period for presenting a claim begins when the statement (meaning a response to the section 23 request) is received or when the time for providing it (four weeks) expires.  There was no response in the instant case and the referral was made three weeks and one day from the date of the request. 

I have considered the Complainant’s legal submissions in this regard in circumstances where the complaint was initiated before the four-week period prescribed in section 23 for a response had elapsed.   I have also taken into account the initial request made on 11 February 2024 to which there was no response.  I am satisfied the Complainant is properly before me.    

Section 26 deals with the powers of Adjudication Officers hearing claims under the NMWA and it provides as follows:

“26. Decision of adjudication officer under section 41 of Workplace Relations Act 2015

(1) A decision of an adjudication officer in relation to a dispute in respect of the entitlements of an employee under this Act referred to the adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015may contain—

(a) a direction to the employer to pay to the employee—

(i) an award of arrears, being the difference between any amount paid or allowed by the employer to the employee for pay and the minimum amount the employee was entitled to be paid or allowed in accordance with this Act in respect of the period to which the dispute relates, and

(ii) reasonable expenses of the employee in connection with the dispute

(b) a requirement that the employer rectify, within a specified time (not being later than 42 days after the date the decision is communicated to the employer) or in a specified manner, any matter, including the payment of any amount, in respect of which the employer is in contravention of this Act, or

(c) both such direction and such requirement, as the adjudication officer considers appropriate.,”

It is noted the Complainant alleges she worked 50 hours per week.  There are no records to support that claim other than oral evidence.  I am satisfied in such circumstances that this claim should be assessed on the statutory maximum of 48 hours per week.   The Complainant worked for the Respondent for 8 weeks and 6 days.  The national minimum wage at the material time was €12.70 per hour.  I note the Complainant’s calculations of the total amount of monies received during the course of her employment in the sum of €1,856.82.  I am satisfied the Complainant should have been paid €5,486.40 (€12.70 x 48 x 9 weeks).    

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant I find this complaint to be well-founded.  The Respondent is required to pay to the Complainant arrears in the sum of €3,629.58 gross.      

CA-00064858-012 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submits she was not compensated for working on a Sunday; she submits she worked on 6 Sundays during the tenure of her employment. 

The Relevant Law

Section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 provides 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 having regard 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.

This section provides that an employee required to work on a Sunday is entitled to a premium payment for the work which may consist of a payment or time off in lieu or a combination of both. 

The Labour Court in Chicken and Chips Limited trading as Chicken Hut v David Malinowski[DWT159] determined that a premium of 33% for working on Sundays was reasonable in the sector.  In Viking Security Limited v Tomas Valentin [DWT 1489] the Labour Court again measured compensation at approximately time plus one third for each hour worked on a Sunday. 

The Complainant gave uncontested evidence that she worked 6 Sundays during the tenure of her employment with the Respondent. 

Taking the Complainant’s hourly wage as the minimum wage of €12.70 per hour I calculate the Complainant is owed €127.00 x 6 + 33% = €1,016.00

Pursuant to section 27(3) of the OWTA, I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant in the amount of €1,016.00 gross for the financial loss.

I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €200 for the breach of the Complainant’s statutory rights.  For the avoidance of doubt, this amount is not in the nature of remuneration and should not be treated as such for the purposes of tax or other deductions. 

I am satisfied this award is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA-00064858-015 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

I note the Complainant submits she was required to work more than the maximum permitted number of hours. 

The Relevant Law

Weekly working hours.

15.—(1) An employer shall not permit an employee to work, in each period of 7 days, more than an average of 48 hours, that is to say an average of 48 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a “reference period ”) that does not exceed—

(a) 4 months, or

(b) 6 months—

(i) in the case of an employee employed in an activity referred to in paragraph 2, point 2.1. of Article 17 of the Council Directive, or

(ii) where due to any matter referred to in section 5, it would not be practicable (if a reference period not exceeding 4 months were to apply in relation to the employee) for the employer to comply with this subsection,

or

(c) such length of time as, in the case of an employee employed in an activity mentioned in subsection (5), is specified in a collective agreement referred to in that subsection.

(4) A reference period shall not include—

(a) any period of annual leave granted to the employee concerned in accordance with this Act

Section 15 of the 1997 Act provides that an employer shall not permit an employee to work more than 48 hours on average per week calculated over the relevant reference period.

It is the Complainant’s case that she worked from 17.00pm to 3.00am from Sunday to Thursday. 

I note it is not disputed that the Complainant’s employment with the Respondent commenced on 21/01/2024 and was terminated on 23/03/2024. 

However, as is clear from the legislation cited above, for a complaint to succeed under section 15 of the 1997 Act, an employee must have worked more than an average of 48 hours per week over a four-month period.  In circumstances where the Complainant was in work for only 8 weeks and 6 days during the cognisable period, it is not possible for her to have worked an average of more than 48 hours per week over any four-month reference period

I find this complaint as presented to be not well-founded in circumstances whereby the Complainant worked for the Respondent for a period of 8 weeks and 6 days and the reference period for measurement under the legislation is 4 months. 

CA-00064858-016 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

I note the Complainant submits she was penalised for raising concerns over the Organisation of Working Time Act.  The Complainant did little to engage with this specific complaint or to advance any evidence thereto.  

Accordingly, I find this complaint to be not well-founded. 

CA-00065059-001 complaint pursuant to section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant submits she was not paid for the first two weeks of her employment which were described as training weeks. 

The Relevant Law

Regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers.

5.—(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 address the circumstances in which wages which are properly payable are not paid:

(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,

then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer fromthe wages of the employee on the occasion.

In the case of Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 the High Court made it clear that the WRC, when considering a complaint under the 1991 Act, must first establish the wages which were properly payable to the employee on the occasion before considering whether a deduction had been made.  If it is established that a deduction within the meaning of the Act had been made, the WRC would then consider whether that deduction was lawful. 

Therefore, the question to be decided is whether the wages claimed by the Complainant were properly payable. 

The Complainant’s uncontested evidence on oath is that she has not received payment for the two weeks at the commencement of her employment.

I am satisfied the monies owing are properly payable to the Complainant.  Accordingly, I find this complaint to be well-founded. 

I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant €1,270.00 gross. 

CA-00064858-001 complaint pursuant to section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint is well-founded.  Accordingly, I award redress of €5,080.00 gross as just and equitable compensation for the unfair dismissal. 

CA-00064858-006 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint is well-founded.  I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €1,500.00 for the contravention of a statutory right. 

CA-00064858-007 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint is well-founded.   I require the Respondent to pay in the amount of €457.20 gross (€12.70 x 36) for her financial loss.  

I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €1,000.00 for the breach of the Complainant’s statutory right. 

CA-00064858-008 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint is well-founded.  I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant in the amount of €254.00 gross for her financial loss. 

I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €200.00 for the breach of her statutory right.

CA-00064858-011 complaint pursuant to section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint is well-founded.  The Respondent is required to pay to the Complainant arrears in the sum of €3,629.58 gross. 

CA-00064858-012 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint is well-founded.  I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant in the amount of €1,016.00 gross. 

I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €200 for a breach of the Complainant’s statutory right

CA-00064858-015 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00064858-016 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint is not well-founded. 

CA-00065059-001 complaint pursuant to section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint is well-founded.  I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant in the amount of €1,270.00 gross.