Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Yasir Ipek

Ramji Limited T/A Mace

Representatives

Self

Joy-Tendai Kangere BL instructed by Wendy Lyon of Abbey Law Solicitors

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-00071698-001

20/05/2025

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

CA-00071698-002

20/05/2025

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

CA-00071698-003

20/05/2025

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

CA-00071698-004

20/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012

CA-00071698-005

20/05/2025

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

CA-00071698-006

20/05/2025

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

CA-00071698-007

20/05/2025

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

CA-00071698-008

20/05/2025

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

CA-00073389-001

13/07/2025

The Complainant submitted two complaint forms in this case. The first on 20 May 2025 identified eight complaints and a second complaint form was submitted on 13 July 2025 identifying one complaint.

The Complainant gave evidence by way of civil affirmation at the hearing and was cross examined on his evidence. An interpreter was present and the interpreters affirmation was administered. There were three witnesses present on behalf of the Respondent; Rasel Hossain, Raju Kandakanthi and Rajish Kumar. Each gave evidence by way of civil affirmation and were cross examined on their evidence.

The Complainant confirmed at the outset of the hearing that he was withdrawing complaint number CA-00071698-005 and it is therefore deemed withdrawn and not addressed any further in this decision.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 22 March 2022 until 23 June 2025. He has brought these complaints as he says that there were multiple breaches of the legislation. He did not feel that he could make a complaint about these matters until after he received his Stamp 4 visa and could leave the Respondent’s employment.

CA-00071698-001 – Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and CA-00073389-001 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant alleged that he did not receive his paid annual leave entitlement. In complaint number CA-00071698-001, he said that the Respondent refused pay during his holiday in 2024 and claimed a previous over payment as the reason.

During his evidence, the Complainant said that this happened during his holiday on 30 August 2024. He could not remember how much he was due to be paid and was scared to put in a complaint at the time because he says that his visa status was threatened. Once he got his Stamp 4 visa, he felt free to make a complaint.

He then submitted complaint number CA-00073389-001 on 13 July 2025, alleging that the Respondent had not paid him his accrued annual leave entitlement after his employment ended on 23 June 2025.

Cross examination of the Complainant

The Complainant was cross examined on his evidence and it was put to him that he was out of time to make the first complaint in circumstances where he alleged that the breach occurred in August 2024. He responded that the complaints were accruing before and after 2025. The Complainant was asked what his hourly rate of pay was when he started his employment and when he left, he responded that he didn’t remember. He was asked how many holiday days he had taken and he stated that he went away for six weeks or something in 2024. He said that he had not calculated how much leave he was owed or how much money he was owed.

The Complainant stated that his fear was that he could not make a complaint in this situation because his visa was connected to his workplace so if he quit then he would have to go back to his country. It was put to the Complainant that this was his own fear and not something coming from the Respondent. The Complainant replied that he didn’t sense this by himself, and that he was clearly given signals during his employment.

The Complainant was asked if he was given money before going on holiday and he accepted that he did receive money. It was put to him that this was an advance payment of his holiday pay. He did not accept this.

CA-00071698-002 – Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Complainant stated that he signed a contract when commencing employment in 2022, but he was never given a copy of this. He said that the lack of written information throughout his employment made it difficult to understand or assert his rights. It was stated in the complaint form that when the immigration status of the Complainant changed from Stamp 2 to Stamp 1, his working pattern shifted from part time to full time but he was not given any written update or amendment to his contract. He stated that he continued working full time without a revised agreement or clarity on his new entitlements.

The complaint form states that the Complainant was “not notified in writing of a change to my terms of employment”. He was asked by the Adjudication Officer to clarify what change this referred to and he stated that it was when he moved from a part time contract to full time employment but this was never provided to him in writing. He said that he was verbally told that he was full time but this was never put in writing.

After he made this complaint, he again asked for a copy of his contract. He was told he should come to the shop to get it but he could not attend so he asked for it by email. The responses he received were excuses not to share it with him and he believed it was available but not shared with him.

When asked by the Adjudication Officer if he accepted that the contract provided by the Respondent was the one he signed, he accepted that it was his signature.

Cross examination of the Complainant

The Complainant was asked when he first looked for a copy of his contract and he replied that he could not remember. He was asked what the response was to his requests and he said that he could not remember. When asked if his requests were refused, he said that generally they just delayed by saying ask someone else. He accepted that he did finally get a copy of his contract.

The Complainant was asked if he accepted that his initial visa permitted working 20 hours per week only. The Complainant accepted that. It was put to him that he was required to provide official paperwork to show a move from a Stamp 2 to a Stamp 1 visa and that he had not provided this. The Complainant said that he told them verbally and that his IRP would be enough, but he accepted that he did not provide any official paperwork of the change in visa status. He was asked when his visa status changed and how many hours he then started to work. He replied that it was variable and changing; sometimes he worked 35 hours and sometimes 20. He did not identify when his visa status changed.

CA-00071698-003 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

In his complaint form, the Complainant stated that he did not get breaks and would work 8-10 hours with, sometimes, only a short break of 15 minutes and this was often interrupted or restricted. He said that he was regularly denied proper rest breaks and was restricted to a specific area and told not to leave. It was stated that he was not permitted to go outside and often the break was limited to 15 minutes or less and would be interrupted if the shop was busy.

In his direct evidence, the Complainant said that regardless of the hours in the day, he was only ever allowed 15 minutes and if it was busy this would be skipped as well.

Cross examination of the Complainant

It was put to the Complainant that he could take breaks and he replied that in general he would take it briefly but only for 15 minutes. He was asked what break he was entitled to and he replied 15 minutes. The Complainant was asked how many hours he worked and said 8, sometimes 10 and rarely 12 hours. Asked how long a break he would take on longer days, he replied 15 minutes for the whole shift. The Complainant was asked if his prayer breaks were facilitated and he accepted that they were and he was not deducted any money for those. Asked how many prayer breaks he would take he said in general 1, sometimes 2. When asked if it was correct that he attended prayer services on a Friday and was paid as normal for that time, he stated that in general that was permitted and he did get paid for this time. He was asked how long that took and he said that it was an hour. 

The Complainant was asked if, in the years that he was in this employment, he ever made a complaint that he had no breaks or short breaks. He responded no because they were always under pressure and there was fear due to the pressure. When asked if he had ever been threatened that he would lose his job if he took his breaks he said no. It was put to him that he was allowed prayer breaks and paid time to attend prayer services without penalisation and he was asked why, in that circumstance, he would be afraid to take his break. He replied that he was acting based on what he was told and was very young, only 18, starting his new life in a country he did not know a lot about.

The Complainant was asked if anyone else was provided with paid time off for prayer and he replied that they were not.

CA-00071698-004 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

In his complaint form, the Complainant says that he was penalised or threatened with penalisation for opposing in good faith an action that is unlawful or giving notice of his intention to do so.

He submitted that the Respondent exploited his dependence on continuous employment for the purposes of obtaining a Stamp 4 permit. He contended that he was subjected to ongoing pressure and intimidation, including threats that he would lose his job or not receive a reference if he refused additional shifts or raised concerns. He stated that this treatment caused anxiety, sleep disturbance and jaw pain. The Complainant also submitted that the Respondent asserted that he would be required to provide two months' notice before leaving employment, despite there being no written contract containing such a requirement, which he believed was intended to deter him from changing employment or asserting his rights.

In direct evidence, he said that he was constantly under pressure and was told that his visa was in the Respondent’s hands, they could burn it and he would have to go back to his country.

When asked by the Adjudication Officer what penalisation he is alleging, he stated that if he did something wrong he was threatened with the work load. That the pressure of the visa status was a pressure on him.

The Adjudication Officer explained that this section of the Act related to opposing a unlawful act and asked the Complainant if he had opposed an unlawful act, he responded that he had not.

CA-00071698-006 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

In his complaint form, the Complainant said that he did not get daily rest periods. He submitted that he was frequently required to work late shifts finishing at 11.00 p.m. and was then rostered to commence work again at 7.00 a.m. the following morning. He stated that, after allowing for travel home, meals and sleep, he received only 7 to 8 hours between shifts. The Complainant maintained that he did not request or agree to such scheduling and that it left him physically exhausted and adversely affected his mental wellbeing. He contended that the Respondent failed to provide the statutory daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours.

In his direct evidence, the Complainant said that he was made to do this occasionally and approximated it at 30% of the time. He said that he had been on sick leave from March but worked full time hours between December and March that year.

Cross examination of the Complainant

It was put to the Complainant that he regularly asked for extra shifts. The Complainant did not accept this. He was asked, if he was offered an extra shift, was it correct that he could decline and he replied that perhaps he could have rejected it but he was afraid that there would be repercussions and he would be treated differently. When asked if he had any examples of a threat, he said no.

CA-00071698-007 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

In his complaint form, the Complainant submitted that he was frequently contacted outside working hours and asked to cover shifts at very short notice, often with less than 24 hours' notice. The Complainant stated that when he refused or questioned such requests, he was treated negatively, made to feel guilty or irresponsible, and experienced passive-aggressive or hostile behaviour. The Complainant contended that this caused stress and left him feeling afraid of losing his job.

The Complainant further submitted that there was significant disorganisation in relation to rostering. He stated that he was often notified of shifts with only a few hours' notice, that shifts were changed at the last minute, and that there were occasions when he attended work in accordance with the roster only to be told he was not scheduled to work. The Complainant contended that these last-minute changes and scheduling errors caused confusion, disrupted personal arrangements, and created unnecessary stress.

Cross examination of the Complainant

It was put to the Complainant that this only happened occasionally and he was free to decline any shifts offered within 24 hours. The Complainant did not accept that it was an occasional practice and he said that he was afraid to say no to Raju because he was afraid of him. The Respondent’s representative stated that the Complainant did in fact refuse shifts and he replied that this was only once he got his stamp 4 visa and felt that he could say something then.

CA-00071698-008 – Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent failed to pay wages and holiday pay which were recorded as having been paid through payroll submissions to Revenue. The Complainant stated that payments of €506.25 were reported to Revenue on 18 April 2025 and 2 May 2025, but no corresponding payments were received into his bank account.

The Complainant further submitted that, prior to taking annual leave in 2024, the Respondent advised that holiday pay would be paid during the leave period, but no such payment was received. The Complainant stated that the Respondent later claimed there had been an overpayment, but no supporting documentation was provided.

The Complainant contended that the Respondent incorrectly reported payments to Revenue that were not received by him and that, despite repeatedly raising the matter, it remained unresolved. The Complainant relied on Revenue records, bank records and WhatsApp correspondence in support of his complaint.

Cross examination of the Complainant

The Complainant was asked if it was correct that the last day he worked was 29 March 2025 and correspondence indicating this was shown to him. The Complainant identified the last day of work as the date of an accident and confirmed that he did not go back to work after that date.

The Respondent submitted that aspects of the Complainant’s claim related to a period outside the six-month time limit provided for under Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. It was argued that the Complainant had not established reasonable cause to justify an extension of time under Section 41(8) of the Act. In support of this position, the Respondent relied on Cementation Skanska v Carroll (DWT0425), in which the Labour Court held that a claimant must provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and demonstrate a direct causal link between the circumstances relied upon and the failure to present the complaint within the statutory period. The Respondent also referred to Hakan Erdogan v Workplace Relations Commission [2021] IEHC 348, in which the High Court affirmed the strict application of the statutory time limits. Accordingly, the Respondent submitted that any out-of-time elements of the complaint were statute-barred and that the Adjudication Officer lacked jurisdiction to investigate those matters.

CA-00071698-001 – Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and CA-00073389-001 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

It is the Respondent’s position that complaint CA-00071698-001 is out of time and, in the alternative, that the Complainant had been paid his annual leave. It was stated that he had been given the money before he went on annual leave in a lump sum. Mr. Hossain, on behalf of the Respondent, gave evidence that he gave the Complainant €2,000 before he went on holidays in 2024. He understood that the Complainant needed 52 payslips for his visa purposes across the year so he gave him €2,000 in cash before he left and then ran the payslips on a weekly basis so that the Complainant would still have 52 payslips at the end of the year. After he had completed the payslips, he noted that the holiday pay came to €1,800 so in fact the Complainant still owed him €200 in 2024.

In respect of complaint CA-00073389-001, the Respondent, in written submissions and at the hearing, accepted that the Complainant is still due 14.4 hours in lieu of annual leave. The explanation for not paying this was that the Complainant was expected to return to work.

CA-00071698-002 – Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Respondent disputes that the Complainant never received a copy of his contract. Mr. Hossain gave evidence that he provided the Complainant with a copy at the commencement of his employment. Further, the Respondent provided a letter dated 13 March 2025 which was given to the Complainant to assist him in his Stamp 4 visa application.

The Complainant again requested a copy of his contract on 22 May 2025 and 24 May 2025 and there is a lengthy email thread of communications exchanged between the parties during this time. It is apparent from this exchange that there is a dispute on the facts about the provision of the contract at the commencement of employment, with the Respondent repeatedly insisting that the Complainant had received a copy at the time. The exchange concludes on 4 June 2025 with the Respondent providing a copy of the contract.

CA-00071698-003 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Respondent denies that the Complainant did not get his breaks. Mr. Hossain gave evidence that the Complainant got more than the usual breaks because he took prayer breaks in addition to his regular ones. He stated that there is a canteen on the premises and this is used as the break area. It was stated that the Complainant got 15/20 minute breaks and would have coffee behind the counter when it was quiet.

CA-00071698-004 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Respondent states that no protected act was identified by the Complainant and therefore there can have been no penalisation for an act that was not taken. It was submitted that any threat or alleged penalisation was not supported by the evidence and the complaint had not been made out.

CA-00071698-006 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Respondent submitted that any additional shifts or overtime worked by the Complainant were undertaken at his own request to accommodate personal family circumstances. It was argued that such arrangements were employee-initiated, managed in a manner that respected statutory rest requirements, and were not the result of any instruction or expectation on the part of the Respondent that the Complainant work excessive hours. Accordingly, the Respondent maintained that it did not “permit” excessive working hours within the meaning of the legislation.

The Respondent further submitted that it maintained full working-time records, including rosters and timesheets for the relevant period, that demonstrate compliance with statutory requirements relating to daily and weekly rest periods.

CA-00071698-007 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Respondent submitted that portions of the Complainant's complaint fall outside the six-month time limit prescribed by section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and are therefore statute-barred. The Respondent contended that the Complainant has not established reasonable cause to justify an extension of time under section 41(8) of the Act.

In support of this position, the Respondent relied on Cementation Skanska v Carroll (DWT0425) and Hakan Erdogan v Workplace Relations Commission [2021] IEHC 348, submitting that the applicable legal authorities require a reasonable explanation for the delay and a direct causal connection between the circumstances relied upon and the failure to lodge the complaint within the statutory time limit.

Accordingly, the Respondent argued that the complaint is out of time and that the Adjudication Officer lacks jurisdiction to investigate the matters complained of.

In the alternative, the Respondent also stated that there was never any penalisation for refusing to work when less than 24 hours notice was given. Mr. Kandakanthi gave evidence that the Complainant was never threatened and he could not have threatened the visa as he had nothing to do with it. He stated that perhaps the Complainant did not understand him. Mr. Kumar stated in evidence that he never threatened the Complainant and that it was his choice whether to accept a shift or not. He stated that the Complainant did sometimes say he was unavailable.

It is the Respondent’s position that any complaint of penalisation or threats has not been made out.

CA-00071698-008 – Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Respondent submitted that, in accordance with the decision in Balans v Tesco [2020] IEHC 55, the initial question is whether the sums claimed by the Complainant were properly payable. The Respondent contended that the sums claimed were either not properly payable or, where adjustments were made, such adjustments were lawful and notified to the Complainant.

Without prejudice to its primary position on time limits, the Respondent further submitted that the manner in which the Complainant's payslips were processed was undertaken at the Complainant's express request. The Respondent stated that the Complainant advised that this arrangement was required to demonstrate 52 weeks' continuous employment for immigration purposes, specifically to support an application for a Stamp 4 permission. The Respondent submitted that it acted in good faith and in reliance on the Complainant's representations regarding those immigration requirements.

The first complaint form in this case was submitted on 20 May 2025. That means that the cognisable period for the complaints contained in that form is 21 November 2024 to 20 May 2025. This is the 6 month period preceding the lodging of this complaint form. The second complaint form was submitted on 13 July 2025 and the cognisable period for that complaint form is therefore 14 January 2025 to 13 July 2025.

Under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, an employee can make a complaint if they believe their employer has broken any of the employment laws listed in Schedule 5 of the Act. These complaints are presented to the Director General of the WRC, usually using the WRC’s complaint form, and the Director General shall then pass the complaint to the WRC’s Adjudication Service. Section 41(1) says:

An employee (in this Act referred to as a “complainant”) or, where the employee so consents, a specified person may present a complaint to the Director General that the employee’s employer has contravened a provision specified in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 5 in relation to the employee and, where a complaint is so presented, the Director General shall, subject to section 39, refer the complaint for adjudication by an adjudication officer.

The Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997; the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 are all contained in Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and so that is how the within complaints have come to me, as an Adjudication Officer, to examine and carry out all necessary inquiries.

Sections 41(6) and 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 provides for the timeframes within which a complaint must be presented. They state:

(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.

(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

The Respondent submits that elements in a number of the complaints relate to matters that occurred outside the six month time limit prescribed above and are therefore out of time. It accepts that section 41(8) provides for an extension of up to a further six months where reasonable cause for the delay is established, however the Labour Court in Cementation Skanska v Carroll (DWT0425) held that the explanation advanced must be reasonable, cogent and not irrational, and that there must be a direct causal connection between the circumstances relied upon and the failure to present the complaint within the statutory period. The Respondent also relied on the High Court decision in Hakan Erdogan v Workplace Relations Commission [2021] IEHC 348 which, it says, further affirmed the strict application of the statutory time limits under the 2015 Act and upheld the refusal to extend time where the requisite threshold had not been met. The Respondent submits that the Complainant has failed to demonstrate reasonable cause for any delay in presenting the complaint and, accordingly, any aspects of the claim arising outside the statutory time limit are statute-barred and fall outside the jurisdiction of the Adjudication Officer.

The Complainant says that his complaints should all be allowed and that the reason he did not make complaints sooner is because of his immigration status. He said that if he lost his job it would jeopardise his visa. He said that the visa status was a pressure on him and if he raised any issues about a breach of his employment rights it would have threatened his immigration status. He submitted that this pressure could be seen in correspondence from the Respondent where repeated requests were made for documentation. In his written submissions he stated that the treatment he received caused severe psychological distress.

The discretion to entertain a complaint after the 6-month period has expired is a discretion that is subject to well-established legal principles and legal tests.  The general principles which apply are that something must be advanced by a complainant that will both explain and excuse the delay. 

The Labour Court set out the now well-established test for reasonable cause for extending the time limit to 12 months in Cementation Skanska (Formerly 1 Kvaerner Cementation) Limited v Carroll [DWTO338]. In that decision it stated as follows:

“It is the Court's view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time.

The length of the delay should be taken into account. A short delay may require only a slight explanation whereas a long delay may require more cogent reasons. Where reasonable cause is shown the Court must still consider if it is appropriate in the circumstances to exercise its discretion in favour of granting an extension of time. Here the Court should consider if the respondent has suffered prejudice by the delay and should also consider if the claimant has a good arguable case.”

Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 places the burden on a complainant seeking an extension of time to establish reasonable cause for the delay in presenting a complaint and the above case held that a complainant must identify the reason for the delay, demonstrate that the reason relied upon provides a reasonable and justifiable explanation for the failure to present the complaint within the prescribed period, and establish a direct causal connection between that reason and the delay.

In determining whether an extension of time should be granted, it is necessary to consider whether the actual period of delay has been adequately explained and justified and whether the complaint would have been presented within the statutory time limit but for the factors relied upon as constituting reasonable cause.

I accept the Complainant's evidence that his immigration status was dependent upon his employment and that this gave rise to genuine concern and anxiety on his part. I also accept that he considered himself to be in a vulnerable position as a result.

However, I am not satisfied that these circumstances constitute reasonable cause for the delay in presenting the complaints. While I have no doubt that the concerns expressed by the Complainant were genuinely held, I am not satisfied that he has established that they amounted to an objective impediment preventing him from submitting his complaints within the statutory time limit. The Complainant relied, in part, on correspondence from the Respondent seeking documentation relating to his immigration status. However, I note that employers are required to satisfy themselves that employees have the requisite permission to work in the State, and I do not regard the Respondent's requests in this regard as constituting a threat. Rather, the evidence supports a finding that the Complainant had a subjective fear that raising concerns or pursuing complaints might adversely affect his immigration status. While I have taken that fear into account, I am not satisfied that it justifies the delay in presenting the complaints, nor am I satisfied that the complaints would have been presented within time but for the factors relied upon by the Complainant. Consequently, I find that reasonable cause for extending time has not been established and the Complainant’s request to extend the time beyond the period of six months is refused.

This decision is therefore concerned with any alleged breaches of the legislation within the cognisable period of 21 November 2024 to 20 May 2025 for the first complaint form and the period of 14 January 2025 to 13 July 2025 for the second complaint form.

CA-00071698-001 – Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and CA-00073389-001 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

Section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 provides that employees are entitled to paid annual leave. The Act sets out three methods for calculating annual leave entitlement and provides that the employee is entitled to whichever calculation produces the greater entitlement, subject to a maximum of four working weeks' leave in a leave year.

A "working week" is defined by reference to the number of days the employee normally works in a week.

In his evidence, the Complainant described complaint CA-00071698-007 as relating to the period in August 2024 when he returned home for approximately six weeks and did not receive the payment that he expected.

As set out above, a complaint of this nature must be made within six months, which in this case is on or after 21 November 2024.

In circumstances where the complaint was not made within six months the Act says that I shall not entertain a complaint referred to me. I find that this complaint has not been made within the statutory timeframe and I therefore do not have jurisdiction to inquire into it.

In relation to complaint CA-00073389-001, the Respondent accepts that annual leave owed to the Complainant has not been paid. It acknowledges that 14.4 hours are still due.

Section 27(3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 sets out the powers available to an Adjudication Officer where a complaint is found to be well founded. The Adjudication Officer may declare whether the complaint is well founded, direct the employer to comply with the relevant statutory provision, and/or award such compensation as is just and equitable in all the circumstances, subject to a maximum of two years' remuneration.

On the basis that the Respondent accepts that not all of the Complainant’s annual leave was paid to him at the end of his employment, I find that this complaint is well founded.

For the Respondent’s breach of section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, I direct that compensation in the amount of €700 be paid to the Complainant which I consider to be just and equitable in the circumstances. I am taking into account the fact that the Complainant was obliged to pursue complaints in order to exercise his statutory rights.

CA-00071698-002 – Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 is the Act which governs an employer’s obligation to notify an employee of any change to their terms and conditions. It says that if any of the information that an employer is required to provide in an employee's written terms and conditions changes, the employer must tell the employee in writing about the change and when it takes effect. The employee must be notified as soon as possible and no later than the date the change comes into effect.

In this case, the Complainant did not provide the date that his visa status changed and so it is not possible for me to identify when the Respondent should have provided notification of a change from part time to full time employment. However, I note that the letter provided by the Respondent dated 13 March 2025 is a statement that the Complainant is a permanent full time employee of the Respondent. This statement reflects the change that the Complainant says he did not receive and for that reason I find that this complaint is not well founded.

The Complainant did not raise a specific complaint that he never received his statement in writing within one month of his employment pursuant to section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, however it did come up as a disputed issue between the parties. There is a direct conflict on the evidence in relation to this point, with the Complainant saying that he never received it and the Respondent insisting that it was provided at the commencement of the employment and again on 4 June 2025.

The Respondent has been able to demonstrate that a contract was signed at the commencement of employment and that, albeit with a relatively short delay of two weeks owing to holidays, it was again provided on 4 June 2025. On the balance of probabilities, I find that the Respondent’s evidence is preferred and a statement in line with section 3 of the Act was provided within one month after the commencement of the employment. For that reason, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00071698-003 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

Section 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 requires employers to provide employees with statutory rest breaks during the working day. An employee must not be required to work for more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without a break of at least 15 minutes, and must not be required to work for more than 6 hours without a break of at least 30 minutes. The 30-minute break may include the initial 15-minute break. A break taken at the end of the working day does not satisfy the statutory requirement, as the break must be provided during the period of work.

There is a direct conflict of evidence in relation to this particular complaint. The Complainant says that he did not get breaks, but acknowledges he received prayer breaks, while the Respondent states that breaks were always provided.

In written submissions, the Respondent provided a table of the Complainant’s work pattern. However this table does not itemise breaks. In part, it sometimes records “1 hr Break paid” but there is no consistency to show that the Complainant received his statutory entitlement on a daily basis. For example, the first line of this table reads that the Complainant worked a 12 hour shift and there is a note which states “1 hr Break paid”. There are four more entries for that calendar week. They record that the Complainant worked eight hours, eight hours, eight hours and seven & a half hours on four consecutive days.

In the absence of any supporting documentation that breaks were scheduled and provided to the Complainant, his evidence that he did not receive any 30 minute breaks is accepted.

Section 27(3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 sets out the powers available to an Adjudication Officer where a complaint is found to be well founded. The Adjudication Officer may declare whether the complaint is well founded, direct the employer to comply with the relevant statutory provision, and/or award such compensation as is just and equitable in all the circumstances, subject to a maximum of two years' remuneration.

On the basis of the evidence given by the Complainant, I find that this complaint is well founded.

As stated above, the cognisable period for this complaint is 21 November 2024 to 20 May 2025 and so any compensation will be related to that period. For the Respondent’s breach of section 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, I direct that compensation in the amount of €800 be paid to the Complainant.

CA-00071698-004 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

Section 26 of the Organisation of Working Time, 1997 governs penalisation under that Act. It states:

26.(1) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation of an employee for:

(a) invoking any right conferred on him or her by this Act,

(b) having in good faith opposed by lawful means an act that is unlawful under this Act,

(c) giving evidence in any proceedings under this Act, or

(d) giving notice of his or her intention to do any of the things referred to in the preceding paragraphs.

and

(5) In this section "penalisation" means any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects an employee to his or her detriment with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—

(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015), or the threat of suspension, lay-off or dismissal,

(b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion,

(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours,

(d) imposition or the administering of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty), and

(e) coercion or intimidation.

Section 26 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 prohibits an employer from penalising an employee for exercising rights under the Act, opposing an unlawful act under the Act, giving evidence in proceedings under the Act, or indicating an intention to do any of those things.

In order to succeed in a complaint of penalisation, a complainant must establish that he or she carried out one of the protected acts identified in section 26(1)(a) to (d) and that a detriment was subsequently imposed as a consequence.

In the present case, the Complainant accepted in evidence that he did not make any complaint to the Respondent concerning a breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. Nor did he identify any instance where he opposed by lawful means an act unlawful under the Act, gave evidence in proceedings under the Act, or indicated an intention to do so.

Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Complainant engaged in any of the protected acts contemplated by section 26(1). In those circumstances, the necessary foundation for a complaint of penalisation has not been established. I therefore find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00071698-006 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

Section 11 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 provides:

“An employee shall be entitled to a rest period of not less than 11 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours during which he or she works for his or her employer.”

The Respondent submitted a table setting out the Complainant's working pattern. Having examined those records, I am satisfied that within the cognisable period, namely 21 November 2024 to 20 May 2025, there were seven identifiable occasions on which the Complainant did not receive the statutory minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours:

• 5 December 2024, 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m., followed by 6 December 2024, 7.00 a.m. to 3.30 p.m.
• 31 December 2024, 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m., followed by 1 January 2025, 8.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.
• 4 January 2025, 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m., followed by 5 January 2025, 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
• 9 January 2025, 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m., followed by 10 January 2025, 7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.
• 11 January 2025, 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m., followed by 12 January 2025, 8.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.
• 9 February 2025, 4.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m., followed by 10 February 2025, 9.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.
• 17 February 2025, 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m., followed by 18 February 2025, 7.00 a.m. to 3.30 p.m.

The statutory requirement is clear and mandatory. Section 11 provides that an employee “shall be entitled to a rest period of not less than 11 consecutive hours”. The records submitted by the Respondent demonstrate repeated instances where this entitlement was not afforded to the Complainant.

Accordingly, I find that the complaint under section 11 of the Act is well founded.

In determining redress, I have had regard to the fact that compensation must relate to the cognisable period only. Pursuant to section 27(3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, an Adjudication Officer may award such compensation as is just and equitable in all the circumstances, subject to the statutory maximum.

Having considered all of the evidence, including the number of contraventions established, I consider an award of €2,000 to be just and equitable in all of the circumstances.  

CA-00071698-007 - Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

For the purposes of this complaint, section 17 of the Organisation of Working Time Act provides that, where an employee’s normal working hours are not specified, the employer must notify them of their hours at least 24 hours in advance. If such notice is not given, the employee may refuse to work those hours without adverse consequences.

Three issues arise: (i) whether the Respondent gave less than 24 hours’ notice, (ii) whether the Complainant refused to work the proposed hours, and (iii) whether the Complainant suffered adverse consequences as a result.

The Complainant submitted WhatsApp messages showing that he was, on occasion, asked to work shifts the following day. I therefore accept that less than 24 hours’ notice was sometimes provided. Within the cognisable period, there is one message dated 11 March which states ”Raju send you roaster wrong..tomorrow you 3-11”. The Complainant replied “I made a plan mama i can’t cancel it.” I am satisfied that this constituted a refusal to work the proposed hours. Mr. Kumar replied “Ring raju & tell him”.

The Complainant stated that he feared Raju and experienced hostility when refusing shifts. However, the Respondent’s witnesses denied this and described the relationship as friendly. Objectively, the response, “Ring Raju & tell him”, does not amount to an adverse consequence. While I accept that the Complainant was in a vulnerable position due to his immigration status, there is no evidence that any adverse consequence followed from his refusal to work the shift in question.

Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00071698-008 – Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 prohibits an employer from making deductions from an employee's wages unless the deduction is authorised by law, provided for in the contract of employment, or agreed to in writing by the employee.

The Act further provides that where an employee receives less than the wages properly payable, or receives no payment at all, the shortfall is treated as a deduction unless it arose solely from a calculation error.

In determining a complaint under this Act, the first issue is to establish what wages were properly payable under the contract of employment. As confirmed by the High Court in Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd [2020] IEHC 55, only once this has been established can consideration be given to whether there was a deduction and, if so, whether it was lawful. Accordingly, I must first determine what wages were properly payable to the Complainant.

The Complainant relies on payroll records submitted to Revenue and copies of bank statements which, he submits, show that he did not receive the same sums.

As outlined above, the cognisable period is 21 November 2024 to 20 May 2025. Accordingly, I will not consider the complaint concerning holiday pay in August 2024, as it falls outside that period. Within the cognisable period, the complaint relates to two entries on the Complainant’s Revenue record dated 18 April 2025 and 2 May 2025.

The relevant question is whether these sums were properly payable to the Complainant. I do not consider that the Revenue records alone establish this. The Complainant has not identified any period during which he worked and was not paid, nor has he provided an explanation as to why the amounts recorded by Revenue were due under his contract of employment. Instead, he relies on a discrepancy between the Revenue records and his bank statements.

While I accept that the Revenue records reflect information furnished to the Revenue Commissioners, I am not satisfied that they demonstrate that the sums in question were contractually due and payable to the Complainant. In the absence of evidence establishing an entitlement to those payments, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

I direct the Respondent to pay compensation in the amount of €3,500 to the Complainant for breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 – annual leave – rest periods