Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Valentine  Jevardat De Fombelle

TG Sporthorses Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

Did not attend

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00074524-001

18/08/2025

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

CA-00074524-003

18/08/2025

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

CA-00074524-005

18/08/2025

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

CA-00074524-009

18/08/2025

The Complainant states that she was employed as a yard rider/groom with the Respondent. The Complainant states that she worked from 24 April 2025 to 7 May 2025; one week trial followed by one week of paid work. She states that she returned to her home country, France from 7 to 15 May and then resumed employment with the Respondent on 15 May 2025. The Complainant states that she worked continuously until 15 August 2025 when she tendered her resignation.

The Complainant states that she was not provided with payslips. The Complainant states that she requested copies of her payslips from the Respondent in writing in order to determine her hourly rate of pay but the Respondent did not revert to her.

The Complainant states that she worked an average of 60 hours per week including working on Sundays without receiving the requisite payment for same.

The Complainant states that her wages were €1200 every 4 weeks but that the Respondent could not keep up the weekly payment and subsequently paid her monthly. She states that over 3 months, she was paid for 12 weeks work instead of 13 weeks.    

The Complainant submits that she is owed €2815 in wages due to her by the Respondent.

The Complainant states that she was regularly required to work more than the maximum permitted number of hours and that she worked more than 60 hours every week.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

I have carefully examined the evidence adduced in the within complaints.

001 - National Minimum Wage

Section 24(1) of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”) provides:

“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”.

Section 24(2) provides:

“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 rights commissioner may allow) has not elapsed since that statement was obtained or time elapsed, as the case may be . . . .”

I note that the Complainant requested a statement as required under s 23 the 2000 Act, however the Respondent did not respond to that request. Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that she did not receive the minimum hourly rate for the hours she worked.  In those circumstances, I find that the within complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €500 in respect of said breach of the legislation.

003- Sunday Working Claim

In relation to the Act, Section 14. states—(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.

The Complainant stated that she worked for a total of 7 Sundays during her employment with the Respondent but did not receive the requisite payment for same. Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent is in breach of the Act in respect of non payment of premium for working Sundays. I find that this complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €500.

005- Payment of Wages Act

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 provides as follows:

“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.”

and

“5(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 from the wages of the employee on the occasion.”

I have reviewed this complaint. The Complainant provided documentation to substantiate her claim in respect of non payment of wages owing to her.  Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the Respondent is in breach of the Payment of Wages Act. I find that this complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant wages owing to her in the amount of €2815.

009-  Organisation of Working Time Act – excessive hours

The Complainant submitted that she was consistently required to work on average 60 hours per week for the duration of her employment. 

Section 15(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act deals with Weekly Working Hours and states as follows:

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.

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the Respondent is in breach of the Act.  I find that this complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €750 which I consider to be just and equitable in all the circumstances.

001 - National Minimum Wage

I find that this complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €500.

003- Sunday Working Claim

I find that this complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €500.

005- Payment of Wages Act

I find that this complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant wages owing to her in the amount of €2815.

009- Organisation of Working Time Act – excessive hours

I find that this complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €750.

Payment of Wages Act, National Minimum Wage, Organisation of Working Time Act, Sunday Working.