Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Chantel  Kelly

Realta Healthcare Ltd

Representatives

Self-Represented

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 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00076572-001

19/10/2025

This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 19/10/2025.  The Complainant alleges contravention by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statute 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 on 09/04/2026. 

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 10/04/2023 such employment terminating by way of resignation on 28/08/2025. 

The Complainant at all material times was employed as a Support Worker.  The Complainant worked a 48-hour week for which she received €15 per hour. 

The Respondent is a Health Care Provider providing services in Dublin South & North & in Kildare. 

The Complainant’s specific complaint is that she has not received her public holiday entitlements for the duration of her employment with the Respondent.

The Respondent seeks to counter this claim with their claim that the Complainant was overpaid. 

Both parties provided submissions and supporting documentation for which I am grateful. 

CA-00076572-001

Overview of written submission

I am making this statement in relation to unpaid employment entitlements owed to me by Realta Homecare During my employment, my normal working hours were from 9:00am on Wednesday to 9:00am on Thursday, and from 9:00am on Friday to 9:00 Saturday, totalling 48 hours per week. On the odd occasion where my working day fell on a bank holiday apart from my first day of employment I used my own accrued annual leave for the day off and still wasn’t paid the days pay. Despite working full time hours, I did not receive the correct payment or time off in lieu for thefollowing entitlements:

I was advised that instead of payment on a day that didn’t fall on my working day that I would receive days back as annual leave or according to the law 1 fifth of my working days pay. [Redacted]  states that all additional rates are added back into your annual leave hours and are used throughout the year at your request. This never occurred. Despite being told over the phone and in email that these days would be added to my annual leave balance, no additional leave was ever credited or taken, and no payment was made in lieu.

Attempts to Resolve the Matter

I made multiple attempts to resolve this matter directly with the company:

· I contacted HR through call and email and was always advised to contact accounts which no number was provided for and most emails ignored or [redacted] my manager who advised me to go to accounts.

· I contacted [redacted] from accounts about bank holidays worked entitlements and bank holidays not worked and was told my pay was correct and holiday count was right even though it wasn’t. Any holidays I had taken throughout my time here was what I had accrued not what should have been credited for bank holiday entitlement.

· I made phone calls and followed up regarding my unpaid entitlements and time back in lieu and was always firmly told it was correct or ignored. Despite any efforts from myself or my team to right this matter the matter was never resolved, and I never received payment for the leave in lieu owed to me. My contract states this and I have never received it.

I am in possession of all my payslips, conversations asking about pay and emails where I enquired about pay, bank holiday pay or entitlements, my contract and proof that my working hours were 48 per week over the course of two days which clearly show that:

· No additional days in lieu or annual leave were granted

· No payment in lieu was made at any stage These payslips and conversations support my claim that the above entitlements remain unpaid. I would also like to mention that I would have been able to provide my weekly rosters for my time worked here but once I handed in my notice I was deleted from the working chat and from the app one touch where all my rosters were uploaded and where I clocked in and out for work.

CA-00076572-001

The Respondent submits that the Complainant’s contract provides that she was placed on €15 per hour and if she worked a bank holiday she would be entitled to an increased amount separate to her usual pay.  The Respondent submitted payslips for 2023, 2024 and 2025.  The Respondent submits that the Complainant has been overpaid with additional bi-weekly for bank holidays.  The Respondent submits that in the two years the Complainant worked for the Respondent she only ever worked one bank holiday.  The Respondent submits that as the Complainant did not work on bank holidays she was placed on a biweekly benefit outlined in her payslips. 

It is submitted that “if her usual working biweekly week she would work 96 hours x €15 = €1440.00.”

It is submitted it can be seen from the payslips that she received an extra €44 bringing her pay to €1484 bi-weekly which is paid twice monthly spread over 12 months of the year. 

It is submitted “in relation to our rates this lady usual works a 24hr sleepover shift from 9am to 9am the following morning.  Sleeping time is from 11pm to 7am = 8 hour of rest time.  Please be advised usual pay for sleep overs are €15 for working time and minimum basic wage for sleeping hours. i.e. €15 from 9am to 11pm and €13.50 from 11pm to 7am.  This lady was in fact overpaid by state law and was an oversight on our behalf as it went unnoticed for some time.  Can this be refunded to us for her employment duration?  This would be an 8 hours payment for every sleepover worked usually 4 x 8 biweekly ie 32 hours x €1.50 totalling an additional €48 per biweekly that would be owed to us for over payment.”

“Please keep in mind CK worked for the company for just over 2 years and only worked 1 bank holiday which is outlined on payslip as additional funds was awarded for this separate to the biweekly payment.  CK was not rostered to any other bank holiday as its not her usual working day.”

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 the 09/04/2026 I will proceed to set out hereunder my findings and conclusions.

CA-00076572-001

In conducting my investigation and in reaching my decision, I have reviewed all relevant submissions and supporting documentation presented to me by the parties.  I have carefully considered the oral evidence adduced at hearing.  I deemed it necessary to make my own inquiries into the complaint during hearing to establish and understand the facts and to seek clarification on certain matters. 

I am obliged to draw my conclusions from the facts as presented to me and by the application of the law to those said facts whilst taking into account all other relevant factors and surrounding circumstances.  The role of the Adjudication Officer is to decide the case before him/her, resolving conflicts in evidence according to the direct evidence presented at hearing.   

Where the evidence of the parties differs greatly and cannot be reconciled findings are made on the balance of probabilities.  In my decision-making role I am constrained both by statute and by precedent. 

Jurisdiction 

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 applies to this complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 (“the 1997 Act”).    Section 41 requires complaints to be presented to the Commission within 6 months of the date of contravention to which the complaint relates, which period can be extended by no more than a further 6 months for reasonable cause.

The complaint was filed with the WRC on 19/10/2025.  The Complainant’s employment ended on 28/08/2025.  Therefore, the cognisable period of this complaint is from 20/04/2025 to 28/08/2025. 

The relevant public holidays within the cognisable period and the scope of my investigation are as follows:

·        Easter Monday (21 April 2025);

·        the first Monday in May (5 May 2025);

·        the first Monday in June (3 June 2025); and

·        the first Monday in August (4 August 2025). 

The Relevant Law

Section 21 of the 1997 Act states: -

“(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”

Section 22 of the 1997 Act provides as follows:-

“(1) The rate—

(a) at which an employee is paid in respect of a day off under section 21, and

(b) of an employee's additional day's pay under that section,

shall be such rate as is determined in accordance with regulations made by the Minister for the purposes of that section.

(2) For the purposes of section 21, time off granted to an employee under that section or section 19 shall be regarded as time worked by the employee.”

The Organisation of Working Time (Determination of Pay for Holidays) Regulations 1997, SI 475 of 1997 (the “1997 Regulations”), address the appropriate daily rate of pay for the purpose of section 21 of the Act and how it should be calculated. 

Regulation 5(1)(a) provides that where the employee concerned works or is normally required to work on a public holiday:

“the relevant rate in respect of that public holiday shall be the sum that is equal to the sum (including any regular bonus or allowance the amount of which does not vary in relation to thework done bythe employee but excluding any pay for overtime) paid to the employee in respect of the normal daily hours last worked by him or her before that public holiday.”

Where the relevant employee does not work on a day which is a public holiday, Regulation 5(2) provides:

“the relevant rate in respect of that public holiday shall be the sum that is equal to one-fifth of the sum (including any regular bonus or allowance the amount of which does not vary in relation to the work done by the employee but excluding any pay for overtime) paid in respect of the normal weekly hours last worked by the employee before that public holiday,”

There are, and were at the material time, ten public holidays provided for by the Second Schedule to the 1997 Act.

The Relevant Facts

In respect of the 4 public holidays the Complainant did not work, the Complainant ought to have been paid a sum equal to one-fifth of the sum paid in respect of the normal weekly hours worked by the Complainant before the public holiday. 

I note the Complainant’s contract of employment exhibited and signed by both parties on 31/03/2023 provides as follows:

Remuneration

Your salary is currently €15 per hour payable twice monthly by credit transfer as detailed on your pay statement.  

For completeness having considered the Respondent claim in regard to overpayment albeit nothing turns on this for the purposes of this investigation, I am unable to find any mention of, or any contractual addendum, or contractual amendment in the documents exhibited by both parties setting out the details the two tier hourly rate as referenced by the Respondent in the written submission.  The contract of employment provides for €15 per hour.  The comprehensive Employee Handbook exhibited is also silent on the matter of a two tier pay rate. 

I note the Employee Handbook exhibited provides as follows:

It is your responsibility to read and understand this Handbook which is a fundamental part of your conditions of employment and should you have any queries in relation to the content of the handbook, please feel free to address these queries to any member of manage

The purpose of the Employee Handbook is to provide you with information on a range of subjects related to the Company and your employment. It sets out key aspects of the Contract of Employment, employment policies and procedures and general guidelines. Further clarification on any issue or to receive any specific policy in full, should be sought from the Human Resources department.

The Employee Handbook should be read in conjunction with your contract of employment, as both documents constitute your full terms and conditions of employment.

I note the following as set out in the Employee Handbook:

1.1.         Public Holidays

Your entitlement to nine (9) public holidays is set out in the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.  Most employees are entitled to paid leave on public holidays. One exception is part-time employees who have not worked for the company for at least 40 hours in total in the 5 weeks before the public holiday.

Employees who qualify will be entitled to either the public holiday off as paid leave or one of the following alternatives:

·      A paid day off within a month of the public holiday

·      An additional day of annual leave

·      An additional day's pay

·      The nearest church holiday to the public holiday as a paid day off

1.2.         Public Holidays for Part-Time Employees

If you have worked for the Company at least 40 hours in the 5 weeks before the public holiday and you are due to work on a public holiday, you are entitled to that day off as paid leave or one of the alternatives as listed above. If you are not required to work on that particular day you will receive one-fifth of your weekly pay instead of the actual day's leave.  Even if you are not rostered to work on a public holiday you are entitled to one-fifth of your weekly pay as compensation for the public holiday.

It is noted the Complainant is adamant that she has not received her public holiday entitlement.  This claim is on the basis that her gross salary remained the same regardless of whether there was a public holiday in the relevant pay period in which a public holiday fell or not and this did substantiate her belief that she had not received her entitlements and on the face of it that appeared to be the case at hearing. 

The Complainant documented fortnightly pay on the WRC form as €1484.00 gross.  I note the payslips exhibited consistently document fortnightly gross pay as €1,484.00.  There appear to be no public holidays delineated on the payslips exhibited and, at face value, this gave rise to a reasonable assumption the public holiday entitlement had not been paid. 

At first glance this is what it appeared like at hearing.   

However, as part of my statutory duty to enquire, I have reviewed each and every one of the payslips exhibited.  I have come to the conclusion the Complainant did receive her public holiday entitlements based on the following findings.    

It is common case the Complainant worked 48 hours per week as set out in her contract of employment for which she received €15 per hour. 

The Complainant was paid on a fortnightly basis for which she should have received €15 x 96 = €1440.00.  It would appear that the fortnightly pay set out in the Complainant’s payslips is inaccurate and it follows the fortnightly pay set out in the WRC complaint form is inaccurate also when her contractual pay entitlement is calculated as above. 

The Complainant should have received €1440.00 gross fortnightly.      

However, having reviewed all of the payslips exhibited I note the Complainant received a fortnightly sum of €1484.00 and her fortnightly gross pay remains constant at that figure. 

I can only conclude that the Respondent would appear to have discharged the public holiday entitlement by way of paying a composite fortnightly rate to include public holiday entitlement. 

Having reviewed the Employee Handbook I am unable to find this approach by the Respondent to the payment of public holiday entitlements reduced to writing.  The contract of employment is equally silent.           

There are four public holidays for consideration within the cognisable period in the within complaint as set out above.  I am satisfied from my review of the payslips the Complainant was paid at the gross rate of €1484.00 during the relevant period which included the public holiday entitlement. 

Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, I am statutorily bound to apply the law under the impleaded Act to the facts of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed and considered the legislation, I find that the only four lawful options open to an employer in order to be compliant with the requirements of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 are those set out and highlighted in section 21(1)(a-d) above.  

I am unable to find anything in the legislation that allows for the payment of public holidays by means of a composite rate such as the method used by the Respondent.    

I note for example in relation to Sunday Premium; section 14(1) of the 1997 Act 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.”

I note in regard to the payment of public holiday entitlement the legislation does not provide for that approach as set out above i.e., an increase in the rate of pay.  There is no such provision.  Nowhere in the legislation does it provide for the payment of public holidays as a composite rate / increase in pay and by way of contrast and for clarity I have set out the provisions in regard to the payment of Sunday premium above.     

I am satisfied there is a legal distinction to be drawn between the approach to the Sunday premium as set out in the legislation which specifically allows for a composite rate to be paid and the approach to public holidays which makes no such provision.  

I find that the method / approach of the Respondent whereby the public entitlements were discharged by means of an increase in the rate of pay falls outside of that which is provided for as set out in section 21(1)(a-d) above and is, therefore, unlawful.    

Furthermore, it is clear from the facts of the within case that the method of payment has created confusion and ambiguity followed by obfuscation as to whether or not the Complainant was paid her entitlements in accordance with the 1997 Act.    

Section 27(3) of the Act provides:

A decision of an Adjudication Officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of a relevant provision shall do one or more of the following, namely:

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded

(b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision

(c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is

just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’

remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment.

In accordance with section 27 of the 1997 Act, I find that the complaint in relation to incorrect calculation of public holiday entitlement in contravention of section 22 is well-founded.  

I further direct that the Respondent is required to pay to the Complainant compensation for the contravention of the Act in the sum of €500.00    

I have carefully considered what constitutes ‘just and equitable’ compensation within s. 27(3)(c) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, in light of the facts adduced in this case and I consider the compensation to be just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.  This is an award of compensation for the breach of a statutory right and is not considered as remuneration or arrears of remuneration.    

I consider the compensation as assessed to be just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. 

I direct the Respondent to review its contracts and payroll policy and to align them both with the requirements of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

CA-00076572-001 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

I direct the Respondent to review its contracts and payroll policy and to align them both with the requirements of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

I also direct the Respondent to pay compensation of €500 to the Complainant, within 42 days of the date of this decision.