Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Anna  Gruziola

Apleona Ireland Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms. Caitriona Montague, Alastair Purdy Solicitors LLP

Act

Complaint 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-00070019-001

15/03/2025

The Complainant commenced Employment on 1st February 2016. At all relevant times, the Complainant’s role was described as “cleaner”. The Complainant remained in the employment of the Respondent on the date of the hearing.

On 15th March 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent made a series of unlawful deduction from her wages following their failure to properly implement an earlier decision of this forum.  By response, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant had been paid all outstanding sums due and owing, and that the complaint itself was not actionable in the present forum.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 27th March 2026. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Both parties issued submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing.

At the outset of the hearing, the Respondent raised a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction. As this matter may be determinative of the entire proceedings, the same will be discussed in advance of the substantive matter.  

By submission, the Complainant stated following a previous decision in her favour, the Respondent failed to implement the relevant outcome. While the Complainant accepted that a payment of compensation was issued, she submitted that as a consequence of miscalculation of the Respondent’s overtime policy, further compensation accrued. The Complaint accepted that the same fell due some time prior to the referral of the present complaint, however she submitted that she sought to resolve the same locally prior to referring the present complaint.

In advance of the hearing, the Respondent raised a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction. In this regard, they submitted that the complaint referred was not actionable under the legislation impleaded. While they further submitted that the complaint raised by the Complainant was denied, they submitted that an alleged deduction from wages is not actionable under the Act impleaded by the Complainant.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Respondent undertook to meet with the Complainant under the auspices of their internal policy and seek to resolve the issues raised by the Complainant.

Regarding the present case, the Complainant has submitted that the Respondent miscalculated her overtime entitlement causing an illegal deduction from her wages.

In answer to a question posed by the Adjudicator, the Complainant accepted that this particular complaint did not relate to her working time, but rather her entitlements arising from the Respondent’s method of calculation of overtime. Following a brief discussion on this matter, the Complainant accepted that the impleaded Act has no jurisdiction to relation to the same.  It was further noted that even in the event that the complaint form was amended, the matter would remain statute barred for the purposes of alternative legislation.

I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

Working Time, Overtime,