ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062278
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mihaly Lengyel | Limerick Dental Company Limited |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00075560-001 | 19/09/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00075560-002 | 19/09/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00075560-003 | 19/09/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/08/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints. Parties were advised in advance of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted. The hearing was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Where submissions from parties were received, they were exchanged. The complainant gave evidence under affirmation. The respondent did not attend.
Background:
The complainant submits that he is owed for annual leave and public holidays. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00075560-001
This complaint was withdrawn. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00075560-002
The complainant gave evidence that he commenced employment on 01/12/2016 and his employment ended on 14/11/2025. He was employed as a dental technician and during covid there were a number of lay offs that occurred and work returned to mostly normal after covid. He was aware that there some financial difficulties and on 13/12/2024 when he last physically worked he was advised that he was going to be laid off. He was advised 16/12/2024 that he was on lay off and he queried the status of the company on 10/03/2025 and requested his owed holidays. He received confirmation on 28/03/2025 that he was owed 6 days annual leave and that conditions were still challenging for the respondent. His employment was deemed to have ended on 14/11/2025 through statutory redundancy payment scheme. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00075560-002
The respondent did not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00075560-002
The complainant submits he is owed for 6 days annual leave and the respondent did not attend and I am satisfied that efforts were made to put the respondent on notice and it would appear that the business no longer operates. Entitlement to annual leave. 19.—(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):
During the cognisable period the complainant’s evidence was that he was owed 6 days annual leave which the respondent had confirmed to him in communication on 28/03/2025. The complainant’s salary was €38,400. I find that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant €632. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00075560-003
The complainant gave evidence that he commenced employment on 01/12/2016 and his employment ended on 14/11/2025. He was employed as a dental technician and during covid there were a number of lay offs that occurred and work returned to mostly normal after covid. He was aware that there some financial difficulties and on 13/12/2024 when he last physically worked he was advised that he was going to be laid off. He was advised 16/12/2024 that he was on lay off and he queried the status of the company on 10/03/2025 and requested his owed holidays. He received confirmation on 28/03/2025 that he was owed 6 days annual leave and that conditions were still challenging for the respondent. His employment was deemed to have ended on 14/11/2025 through statutory redundancy payment scheme. He is owed 5 public holidays accrued during lay off. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00075560-003
The respondent did not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00075560-003
The complainant submits he is owed for 6 days annual leave and the respondent did not attend and I am satisfied that efforts were made to put the respondent on notice and it would appear that the business no longer operates. The applicable law provides that : 21.—(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. (5) Subsection (1) shall not apply, as respects a particular public holiday, to an employee who is, other than on the commencement of this section, absent from work immediately before that public holiday in any of the cases specified in the Third Schedule. Section 21 (5). 3. such an absence, in excess of 13 consecutive weeks, caused by any reason not referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 but being an absence authorised by the employer, including a lay-off,
The complainant’s evidence which is undisputed was that during the cognisable period he was owed 5 public holidays comprising of public holidays in lieu of Christmas Day, St Stephens Day, New Years Day, St Bridget’s Day and St Patricks day. The complainant’s salary was €38,400. I find that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant €527. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00075560-002 I find that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant €632. CA-00075560-003 I find that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant €527.
|
Dated: 29th of September 2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Annual leave, public holidays, respondent did not attend, organisation of working time act |