Case Law Reviewed – March 2026

Almost €40,000 in Compensation for Numerous Breaches of Statutory Employment Rights

Background

The Complainant began his employment as a Chef with the Respondent in April 2019.

The Respondent employed more than 50 staff across five franchise locations in Munster and Leinster.

The Complainant referred multiple complaints to the WRC under various pieces of employment legislation in March 2024.

Summary of Complainant’s Case

Due to a medical condition, the Complainant was absent from work between 26 October 2023 and 30 October 2023. Based on the statutory entitlements outlined under employment law, the Complainant was eligible to receive sick pay amounting to €308.70, calculated as 70% of his daily wage (€147) over three working days. Despite this entitlement, the Respondent failed to issue the appropriate payment. On 1 November 2023, the Complainant sent an email to the Respondent, formally requesting the outstanding sick pay. This request was not acknowledged or responded to by the Respondent.

Shortly thereafter, on 20 November 2023 less than three weeks following the Complainant’s inquiry about his unpaid wages, the Respondent issued a letter notifying the Complainant that he was being transferred from the Cork branch to a different company location in Dublin, effective immediately. The Complainant, who had been working at the Cork branch since mid-2020, was not provided with a clear explanation for this sudden relocation.

The Complainant provided correspondence with the Employer outlining the timeline of the Respondent’s efforts to change the terms of the employment contract.

The Complainant made further claims against the Respondent for failing to respect his legal rights under the following statutes:

• Payment of Wages Act 1991
• Organisation of Working Time Act 1997
• Sick Leave Act 2022
• Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

Summary of Respondent’s Case

The Respondent disputed that the Complainant was dismissed and stated that he remained in employment as far as it was concerned.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant was paid €18.85 per hour, which included the Sunday premium payment of 10%.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant was paid all of the wages that he was contractually entitled to in respect of the hours that he worked.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant was responsible for his work schedule, namely for setting the hours that he worked as well as for taking his breaks.

The Respondent could not explain why they did not pay the Complainant his sick pay.

Findings and Conclusions

Unfair Dismissal

While there may have been a breakdown in communication and a failure by the Respondent to allocate work hours, these factors did not meet the legal threshold to establish that a dismissal occurred. The Adjudicator did not therefore have jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint.

Sunday Premium

The Adjudicator accepted the Complainant’s evidence that the 10% Sunday premium provided for in his contract was not paid in respect of the hours he worked on Sundays. This conclusion was based primarily on the fact that the Respondent did not dispute that they listed €18.33 as the Complainant’s basic hourly rate in the documentation submitted for the renewal of his employment permit. Since this figure represented only his basic hourly rate, it could not have included the additional 10% premium for Sunday work as set out in his contract.

The Adjudicator also noted that the Complainant’s hourly rate was later increased to €18.85 per hour, which became the amount he received for Sunday work thereafter. However, this still fell short of the rate that would include the 10% Sunday premium. Based on the contractual entitlement, the Complainant should have been paid €20.74 per hour for Sunday work, not €18.85 over the course of the cognisable period. The Adjudicator found that this complaint was well founded.

Payment of Wages

As the hours that the Complainant stated he worked were not challenged by the Respondent at the hearing, the Adjudicator accepted his evidence that he was underpaid in the amount of €2,934.43 in respect of hours worked between September and November 2023. The Adjudicator therefore found that this complaint was well founded.

Public Holiday Pay

The Respondent conceded the claim for public holiday pay and it was therefore well founded.

Annual Leave

As the Complainant was paid for 56.4 hours holidays in respect of the statutory 2023 leave year, the Adjudicator found that the outstanding unpaid entitlement was 120.504 hours. This amounted to an unpaid annual leave entitlement of €1,898.34.

Rest Breaks

The Complainant alleged that he did not receive the required rest breaks during his employment. While he occasionally took short pauses to get something to eat or drink, these breaks were only possible when the restaurant was quiet and not during busy periods.

The Respondent argued that the Act’s provisions did not apply to the Complainant, asserting that he had full control over his working hours.

The Adjudicator noted that Employers are required to maintain records demonstrating compliance with working time provisions. The Respondent failed to produce any such records to show that the Complainant received the rest breaks mandated under the legislation and the complaint was therefore well-founded.

Weekly Working Hours

It was undisputed that the Complainant’s contractual working week was 39 hours. The Complainant gave evidence that he not only routinely worked in excess of these 39 hours but frequently exceeded the maximum weekly limit of 48 hours set out in Section 15 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. He stated that his average weekly hours during the cognisable period amounted to 56.94 hours.

Based on the evidence presented at the WRC hearing, the Adjudicator was satisfied that the Complainant regularly worked in excess of 48 hours per week, which constituted a breach of Section 15 of the 1997 Act.

Sick Leave

The Complainant stated that, due to a medical condition, he was absent from work from 26 October 2023 to 30 October 2023. He claimed that he was entitled to receive sick pay in the amount of €308.70 (three days at 70% of the €147 daily rate).

As no evidence was provided to show that the Respondent made the payment, or that the Complainant failed to submit the medical certificate, which he stated he had submitted, the Adjudicator found that this complaint was well founded.

Rest Periods

This complaint was conceded by the Respondent and was therefore well founded.

Decision

The Adjudicator awarded a total of over €39,000 in compensation to the Complainant for the numerous breaches of his employment rights.

Recommendations

While the Adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to rule on the issue of the Complainant’s dismissal, the total amount of compensation in the context of non-compliance with various statutes touched on €40,000.

The decision highlights the costly financial and reputational risks of failing to respect the statutory employment rights of Employees.

Organisations should note that as part of the state’s apparatus for the enforcement of EU law, the WRC must award remedies that are ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ for breaches of EU legislation. In applying this concept, the WRC’s orders to compensate are often punitive for Employers.