ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055934

Parties:

| **** | Complainant | Respondent |
| Parties | Hugh  Myles | Mark Keenan Mk Tyres |

| Representatives | Self | Declan Brooks Shanley Solicitors LLP |

Complaint(s):

| Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
| Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00068072-001 | 12/12/2024 |
| Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00068072-002 (withdrawn) | 12/12/2024 |
| Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00068072-003 | 12/12/2024 |
| Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00068072-004 | 12/12/2024 |
| Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00068072-006 | 12/12/2024 |
| Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00068072-007 (withdrawn) | 12/12/2024 |
| Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022 | CA-00068072-008 (withdrawn) | 12/12/2024 |
| Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00068072-010 | 12/12/2024 |

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/02/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 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 complaint.

Background:

| The complainant withdrew CA 68072 – 002, 005, 007, 008.  The complainant also withdrew CA-00068072-011 – A complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act. |

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

| Hugh Myles took the affirmation and gave his evidence as follows:

CA-00068072-003

Prior to commencing employment with the Respondent, the Complainant undertook a review of the company’s HR procedures and financial accounts. Following this review, he prepared and issued a document containing recommendations designed to regularise and improve the HR function within the business. These recommendations addressed matters including contracts of employment, Health and Safety statements, policies, staff handbooks and related documentation.

The Complainant downloaded the necessary templates required for completion in respect of all staff members. He states that Mr. Keenan indicated he had no interest in implementing the recommendations. This is disputed by the Respondent.

The document prepared by the Complainant identified operational difficulties within the business and noted the apparent absence of formal HR procedures. He recommended that he assume responsibility for all HR matters and implement appropriate systems to rectify the identified deficiencies. The Respondent did not accept this proposal.

The Complainant states that, as a consequence, he never received written terms and conditions of employment. The Respondent maintains that issuing contracts of employment formed part of the Complainant’s role and that he failed to issue a contract to himself.

CA-00068072-004

On 9 October, the Complainant received a telephone call from Mr. Keenan informing him that his working hours would be reduced to two or three days per week. The call was subsequently disconnected. The Complainant attempted to return the call but was unable to hear Mr. Keenan.

On 15 October, the Complainant emailed Mr. Keenan stating that he had devoted considerable time to organising and formalising the company’s operations and that working two to three days per week would not be sufficient to carry out his role effectively.

The Respondent replied setting out concerns in relation to the Complainant’s employment, and the Complainant was dismissed. At the time of dismissal, the Complainant was on sick leave.

The Complainant accepts that the proposed amendments to his terms were never implemented.

CA 00068072 - 006 Minimum Notice (Tems of Employment) Act complaint:

This claim is conceded by the Respondent.

CA-00068072-010 Organisation of Working Time Act Complaint

The Complainant gave evidence that he worked for the Respondent for a total period of 19 weeks, from 1 June 2024 to 15 October 2024.

He stated that he worked 45 hours per week, amounting to a total of 855 hours over the course of his employment. On that basis, he submits that he accrued 68.4 hours of annual leave, equivalent to approximately 7.6 days. He states that he did not receive this leave, nor was he paid in lieu of untaken annual leave upon termination of his employment.

The Complainant acknowledged that he was absent on sick leave for three days in early September and for a further 13.5 days between late September and October 2024.

The Respondent disputes the Complainant’s calculation of his weekly working hours and maintains that he was employed to work a 38-hour week and never worked in excess of that.

The Complainant states that, in practice, he worked from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. each day and worked through his lunch break, amounting to 45 hours per week.

The Respondent further contends that the Complainant was late for work on an almost daily basis. This assertion is disputed by the Complainant.

CA-00068072 -001 Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

On 9 October, the Complainant was discharged from hospital. On 10 October, he texted Mr. Keenan to inform him that he was out of hospital and intended to return to work on 11 October. Mr. Keenan asked him to call him, which he did.

During that call, the Complainant explained that while he had been in hospital, he had time to review the company’s purchasing software and had discovered that two stock items had no cost price allocated to them. The Complainant stated that this was an issue. He initially suggested that Dean Martin may have made an error, but Mr. Keenan immediately responded that it could have been him who made the error. The subject was then changed to issues with customer payments not being correctly allocated to their accounts. The Complainant believed this was an issue involving another staff member. Mr. Keenan then said that he wished to discuss altering the Complainant’s working hours, and that this would need to be discussed face to face, as he required time to consider it. The call then dropped. They attempted to contact each other several times afterwards, but the connection was very poor.

On the morning of 10 October, Mr. Keenan sent a text requesting the login details for the Xero accounting system. The Complainant had set up the system at the commencement of his employment. It was initially set up using his personal email address, and he provided a second personal email address as a backup, as required by the system. He later changed the backup email once he had access to the office Gmail account.

The Complainant was in sole charge of the Xero system. In order to transfer access to Mr. Keenan, he was required to send him an invitation to log into the system. He sent four invitations to Mr. Keenan and to the company accountant; however, none of these invitations were accepted. When Mr. Keenan requested the login details, the Complainant explained that he had already sent several invitations and informed him of the email address to which they had been sent. He also asked whether his access to the team system had been restricted, and Mr. Keenan informed him that he had changed all the login details.

On 12 October, the Complainant forwarded his most recent medical certificates.

On Tuesday, 15 October at 12:28pm, he sent an email in response to the request to reduce his hours. He stated that he could not perform the work required within the hours suggested. In that email, he set out what he described as protected disclosures, namely:

·         Unaccounted funds going in and out of the bank account.

·         Inaccurate stock records.

·         Credit card payments on account not being allocated.

·         A “free for all” process of charging friends unauthorised prices.

·         Goods and services being sold without invoices.

·         Poor controls over the handling of cash.

·         A staff member selling goods and services to family members with no record of payment.

·         Refusal to allow him to use the Xero accounts package.

·         Legacy issues regarding the use of the systems.

·         Lack of best practice procedures in relation to the financial structure.

·         Goods fitted to vehicles and not charged for.

·         Parts for the sister company charged to MK Tyres.

·         Poor workmanship that put customers at risk.

·         Giving credit to customers without accounts being set up.

The Complainant states that the Respondent was aware of a staff member selling services to family members for no charge. He asked Mr. Myles to address this with the staff member, but Mr. Myles told him that it was not his job and that he should do it.

Mr. Keenan replied to the email setting out the protected disclosures later that night, stating that he had taken note of the issues and would look into them. At the end of that letter, he informed the Complainant that his employment was being terminated.

In or around mid-August, the Complainant’s partner ordered two tyres from the Respondent. She attended to have them fitted and mentioned that there might be an oil leak. The previous weekend the car had experienced an engine issue, and when it was inspected there was old residue visible. It was agreed that the engine should be washed. She left to have it washed and was told she could leave the undertray at the premises and it would be refitted when she returned. She did not, in fact, have the engine washed. After the Complainant was dismissed, his partner contacted the Respondent to ask if the undertray could be refitted. She attended and it was fitted. Three days later, she noticed smoke coming from underneath the car. The Complainant examined the vehicle and observed that a brake pad cable had been torn out, an access panel in the bumper had been pushed in, and the clips were broken. He states that none of these issues were present prior to her bringing the car to the Respondent.

The Respondent states that he had attended bereavement counselling with the Complainant’s partner and that it was she who recommended the Complainant to him, which led to his introduction to the business. The Complainant accepts that this is how the introduction occurred.

In relation to the internal accounting software, the Respondent contends that the Complainant continuously attempted to divert it. The Complainant denies this and states that there were legacy issues arising from five old systems being integrated into the new system. He maintains that this required certain processes to be implemented and that it took time.

The Respondent states that the Complainant had issues with staff and customers. The Complainant denies this and states that he was never disciplined by the Respondent. In cross-examination, the Respondent referred to a message sent by the Complainant on 30 August 2024, which read:

“ Mark, I arrived to work yesterday at my usual time. I was instructed by Dean to not go to my place of work but to instead sit in the canteen and wait for someone to talk to me. I waited an hour but nobody spoke to me. It was made obvious to me that I had been stripped of my normal duties and there was some form of disciplinary process under way. I sat for an hour, humiliated in front of staff who all were aware of what was taking place, with no indication as to what the issue was, what my role was in any such issue and no opportunity being given for a right to reply. You were there when I arrived, but did not speak to me. Before I left. I asked Dean once again what was going on and was told to speak to you. You had left the premises. I informed Dean I was going home and left so as to not face any further humiliation. In light of the fact that I have still, 24 hours later, not been informed of any issue or wrongdoing on my behalf I must assume it is your desire to end the employment relationship. Therefore, I ask that you inform me of the reason for your actions by close of business today and that I wish to enact my right to open grievance proceedings under the employment acts. Should I not receive a response by close of business today I will assume that I have been constructively dismissed and unfairly dismissed. I shall then act accordingly to that reality. I should point out that this situation has left me deeply shocked and disappointed. Nobody should be treated in this manner.”

It was put to the Complainant that this indicated a disciplinary issue had arisen. The Complainant stated that he did not know what the issue related to. The Respondent stated that the Complainant did know, as he had been instructed not to answer the phone, did not like that instruction, and went to the canteen in a huff.

The Respondent further states that the discussion regarding the alleged protected disclosures did not take place on 9 October and that the follow-up email of 15 October was sent after the dismissal. The Complainant denies this. He maintains that he raised the stock issue during the phone call on 10 October but did not outline the other matters until 15 October. In his submission, he states that he raised a “series of protected disclosures,” which the Respondent disputes. This occurred a number of hours before the dismissal.

The Respondent states that he raised the issue of reduced hours because the Complainant had been on sick leave twice in a short period and had been hospitalised. The Complainant states that he was not aware of the motive behind the suggestion.

A WRC inspector carried out an inspection and found no issues with the Respondent’s policies, contracts, or terms and conditions. The Complainant states that this inspection must have taken place after he left. The Respondent states that the Complainant failed to implement the matters he had been employed to put in place, refused to do so, and therefore had to be let go, after which someone else was employed to perform those duties.

The Complainant commenced employment with another company nine days after leaving the Respondent. |

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

| Mark Keenan – Affirmation

Mr. Mark Keenan is the owner of the business and operates as a sole trader. He became acquainted with the Complainant following bereavement counselling attended by his partner, Rosie Keenan. It was explained to him that the Complainant had experience in the motor garage sector. At that time, Mr. Keenan states he was in a vulnerable position following the death of his partner. He was not aware that his counsellor and the Complainant were in a relationship and only discovered this at a later stage.

Mr. Keenan has a disability and required assistance in managing the business. He believed the Complainant would be a suitable fit, given his stated experience and expertise, and employed him to assist with HR matters, contracts, accounts, and to put formal procedures in place.

Mr. Keenan rejects the Complainant’s assertion that he was prevented from carrying out his role in relation to policies and contracts. He states that the Complainant was specifically employed to undertake those tasks, as Mr. Keenan was unable to do so due to his disability.

Mr. Myles explained to Mr. Keenan that the company required an external accounts package. Mr Keenan approved and paid for such a system. The intention was to increase transparency in financial transactions. However, in his view, the new system did not operate effectively. The previous “Team Systems” package remains in place and, according to Mr. Keenan, is functioning satisfactorily. In hindsight, he believes the Complainant sought control over the new system, as only the Complainant could grant access. Mr. Keenan states that he found himself without administrative control and unable to access his own accounts without the Complainant’s permission.

The Complainant was provided with an upstairs office and had access to company emails, accounts, and the new accounting system.

Mr. Keenan stated that the first number of weeks of employment were unproductive. The Complainant was expected to implement an accounts package, HR policies, and contracts. Mr. Keenan says this work was not completed. Instead, the Complainant began answering telephones. Mr. Keenan states the Complainant was not qualified to provide advice to customers and was instructed not to answer the phones. The Complainant indicated that he was doing so due to staff shortages. Mr. Keenan disputes this, stating that sufficient staff were present whose role it was to answer calls.

Mr. Keenan further states that the Complainant was rude to customers and displayed an attitude of arrogance, appearing unwilling to accept criticism. Complaints were received from both customers and staff regarding his manner. He was instructed on several occasions to return to the duties for which he had been employed.

There was an incident involving Mr. Dean Martin, following which Mr. Martin spoke with the Complainant on 29 August. Mr. Keenan states he asked Mr. Martin to attempt to maintain a workable relationship so that the Complainant could focus on his assigned duties.

With regard to attendance, Mr. Keenan stated that there were numerous occasions when the Complainant did not attend work without notification. During cross-examination, text messages were produced showing that the Complainant notified the Respondent of illness on at least two occasions. This was conceded.

The Complainant asserts that he made a protected disclosure on 10 October. Mr. Keenan disputes that any protected disclosure was made. He states that the discussion concerned not charging a customer the full retail price for tyres. This related to Mr. Martin’s sister, with whom Mr. Keenan was in a relationship at the time, and who was charged wholesale rates. Mr. Keenan does not accept that this constituted a protected disclosure.

In relation to the alleged poor working practices / financial irregularities the Complainant raised the following matters, which he characterised as either protected disclosures or serious wrongdoing. Mr. Keenan’s responses are as follows:

·         Unaccounted funds entering and leaving the bank account

Mr. Keenan denies this. All funds were recorded and available to the company accountant. He accepts that the Complainant may not have understood certain transactions.

·         Inaccurate stock records

Mr. Keenan states that all stock is uploaded and invoiced accordingly. Occasional zero stock entries are normal. The claim that €11,000 worth of tyres had zero value is rejected as implausible.

·         Credit card payments not allocated:

He states that all transactions are reflected in bank statements.

·         Unauthorised pricing for friends:

This relates to his girlfriend being charged wholesale rates.

·         Goods and services sold without invoices:

He denies this, stating invoices exist for all transactions.

·         Poor controls over cash handling:

He states all cash is recorded.

·         Staff selling goods/services to family without payment records:

He denies this and states it again relates to his girlfriend.

·         Refusal to allow use of Xero accounts package

Mr. Keenan states that access difficulties arose because he was locked out of his own account and had to contact Xero directly to regain access.

·         Legacy system issues:

He accepts there were historical issues, which the Complainant was employed to improve.

·         Lack of best practice financial procedures:

He accepts shortcomings existed but states this was precisely why the Complainant was hired.

·         Goods fitted and not charged:

He states this relates to his girlfriend’s wholesale pricing.

·         Parts for sister company charged to MK Tyres:

He states this occurred once due to supplier error and was corrected.

·         Poor workmanship putting customers at risk:

He refers to a single incident involving a locknut, described as an isolated error over many years.

·         Credit extended without accounts:

He denies this. All of his accounts are checked by his accountant and everything is in order.

·         Unsafe working environment:

He states no grievance was raised and no other staff member has raised safety concerns.

Mr. Keenan states he allowed the Complainant approximately five months to perform his duties but observed little progress. Numerous conversations took place regarding lack of output. Ultimately, Mr. Keenan concluded that he could not continue employing the Complainant due to lack of performance, and this led to the dismissal.

Following the Complainant’s departure, Mr. Keenan engaged an accountant to regularise the accounting systems and retained an external HR consultant to address HR documentation. He states these matters were resolved promptly.

Dean Martin – Affirmation

Mr. Dean Martin gave evidence that he never witnessed Mr. Keenan behave disrespectfully toward the Complainant. He was aware that Mr. Keenan expressed frustration regarding the Complainant’s lack of progress.

Mr. Martin states he did not instruct the Complainant to answer telephones. He believes the Complainant took it upon himself to do so, including during Mr. Martin’s vacation.

Mr. Martin stated that several customers complained about the Complainant’s attitude, and one customer refused to enter the premises while he was present. Staff members also raised concerns. Mr. Martin instructed the Complainant to return to his designated duties and cease answering phones. The Complainant was unhappy with this instruction.

Mr. Martin acknowledged that on one occasion he apologised to the Complainant regarding how he handled a particular issue.

Brian McNally – Affirmation

Mr. Brian McNally stated that he has no operational involvement in the Respondent’s tyre business. He is an investor in a separate part of the wider business.

He was surprised by the Complainant’s assertion that financial impropriety or fraud was occurring. As an investor, he has access to financial information and has never identified any irregularities or red flags. |

Findings and Conclusions:

| CA 68072 01

The Complainant alleges that he was dismissed as a result of having made protected disclosures. The Respondent denies that any protected disclosure, within the meaning of the Act, was made and states that the dismissal arose from performance-related concerns. I note the claim was brought pursuant to S8 of the 1977 act and not the 2014 Act.  The complainant does not have the required service to bring a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act however if he can establish he was dismissed due arising from a protected disclosure he is exempt from the statutory required years’ service

Section 5 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (as amended) provides that a “protected disclosure” is a disclosure of “relevant information” made by a worker in the manner specified by the Act.

For a disclosure to be protected, the worker must disclose relevant information. The information must, in the reasonable belief of the worker, tend to show one or more forms of relevant wrongdoing. The wrongdoing must have come to the attention of the worker in a work-related context and the disclosure must be made in an appropriate manner as set out in the Act.

“Relevant wrongdoing” is exhaustively defined in the Act and includes matters such as criminal offences, failure to comply with legal obligations, miscarriages of justice, health and safety dangers, damage to the environment, misuse of public funds, oppressive conduct by a public body, or concealment of any of these.

It is well established in WRC and Labour Court jurisprudence that the Act does not protect complaints or grievances relating to interpersonal conflict or performance issues or bad business practices. The information disclosed must tend to show wrongdoing of a nature identified in the Act. Mere assertions, speculation, or disagreements regarding management decisions or accounting practices do not automatically constitute protected disclosures. The worker must hold a reasonable belief that the information disclosed tends to show relevant wrongdoing.

The burden rests on the Complainant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that he made a protected disclosure and that his dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from having done so.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent to assist with HR matters, contracts, accounts and procedures. He states that on 10 October he raised concerns during a telephone call regarding stock items with no cost price allocated and issues with customer payments. On 15 October at 12:28pm, he sent an email outlining what he described as a series of protected disclosures, including:

-          Alleged unaccounted funds entering and leaving the bank account;

-          Inaccurate stock records;

-          Credit card payments not allocated;

-          Unauthorised pricing for friends,

-          Goods/services sold without invoices,

-          Poor cash controls,

-          Staff selling goods/services without payment records,

-          Refusal to allow him access to the Xero accounting system,

-          Legacy system issues,

-          Lack of best practice procedures,

-          Goods fitted and not charged,

-          Parts charged incorrectly between entities,

-          Poor workmanship,

-          Credit extended without accounts.

He states that his employment was terminated later that same evening and contends that the dismissal was causally connected to these disclosures.

Mr. Keenan states that the Complainant was employed to formalise HR and accounting systems and that little progress was made over approximately five months.

He states that the accounting system was introduced at the Complainant’s request but created access difficulties, leaving him locked out of his own accounts. That raised red flags in relation to the Complainant’s motives in relation to his business.

Mr. Keenan gave an explanation in relation to each of the alleged protected disclosures. He stated that the alleged financial irregularities were unfounded and either misunderstandings or isolated issues (such as wholesale pricing for his partner). It is important to note that the Respondent is not a limited company. He is a sole trader.

It is also important to note that all of the business’s accounts were available to the company accountant  and Mr. Mc Nally and no irregularities were ever identified.

The Complainant’s dismissal arose from lack of performance and failure to implement systems, not from any disclosure.

Mr. Keenan further disputes that any protected disclosure was made during the telephone conversation of 10 October and states that the matters raised on 15 October were either managerial disagreements or unfounded allegations.

The central issue for determination is whether the matters raised by the Complainant constitute protected disclosures within the meaning of the Act.

Having carefully considered the evidence, I find as follows:

The majority of the matters raised relate to business accounting practices, stock recording discrepancies, pricing decisions, system access disputes, alleged weaknesses in internal procedures, a disagreement regarding use of accounting software, A dispute concerning wholesale pricing applied to a person known to the Respondent. These are, in substance, operational and managerial concerns within a private business.

While the Complainant characterised these as serious wrongdoing, the evidence does not establish that the information disclosed tended to show criminal offences, breaches of legal obligations, or other relevant wrongdoing within the statutory definition.

No independent evidence of fraud, theft, criminal conduct, or unlawful accounting practices was presented. The Respondent’s evidence was that all transactions were recorded, available to the accountant, and subject to oversight. Mr. McNally confirmed that no red flags had ever arisen in financial records.

In relation to the allegation of goods sold at wholesale rates to a person connected to the Respondent, this amounts to a pricing decision within a private enterprise. There was no evidence that this constituted a breach of law.

Allegations of “poor workmanship” and “unsafe working practices” were not supported by evidence of systemic health and safety breaches. One isolated locknut incident was referenced by the Respondent and not shown to amount to relevant wrongdoing under the Act.

Even if the Complainant subjectively believed that wrongdoing was occurring, the Act requires that such belief be reasonable. The evidence presented demonstrates that the accounts were available to professional oversight. Furthermore the alleged €11,000 zero-value stock claim was denied and unsupported by any evidence documentary or otherwise.

The internal system issues were acknowledged legacy matters for which the Complainant was hired to implement improvements.

On balance, I am not satisfied that the Complainant has established that the information disclosed tended, objectively, to show relevant wrongdoing as defined by the Act.

Even if I were to accept that a protected disclosure had been made, the Complainant must show that his dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from making that disclosure. The evidence indicates that there was ongoing dissatisfaction with his level of underperformance. Mr. Keenan stated that in the five months of his employment he had achieved none of the targets for which he was hired. He simply couldn’t afford to keep paying hm when he was not delivering . I also note that he was the subject of complaints from customers and staff members.

I am entirely satisfied that his dismissal occurred in the context of a deteriorating working relationship and concerns regarding his output. The Complainant secured alternative employment within nine days.

I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from the email of 15 October. Accordingly, the complaint fails.

CA 68072 – 003

Having considered the evidence presented by both parties, I am satisfied that the Complainant did not receive written terms and conditions of employment as required under the relevant statutory provisions. While the Respondent contends that the preparation and issuing of contracts formed part of the Complainant’s role and that he failed to issue a contract to himself, the statutory obligation to provide written terms and conditions rests with the employer.

I therefore find that the complaint is well founded.

Taking account of the circumstances of the case, including the Complainant’s role and the limited period involved, I consider that an award of two weeks’ remuneration is appropriate.

The Complainant’s weekly remuneration was €381. Accordingly, I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €762 (two weeks’ pay).

CA 68072 – 004

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent intended to cut his hours. However, I note that that never happened. As there was no change to the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment there was no statutory obligation on the Respondent to act. In those circumstances I find that the complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails.

CA 68072 – 006

The complaint was conceded by the Respondent. Pursuant to S4(2) (a) of the Act the Complainant is entitled to one weeks’ notice. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is well founded and I award the Complainant €381.00.

CA 68072 – 010

This complaint concerns an alleged failure by the Respondent to provide the Complainant with his statutory annual leave entitlement or payment in lieu of untaken annual leave.

The Complainant gave evidence that he was employed by the Respondent for a period of 19 weeks, from 1 June 2024 until 15 October 2024. He stated that he worked 45 hours per week and calculated that he accrued 68.4 hours of annual leave during his employment, equivalent to approximately 7.6 days. He stated that he neither took this leave nor received payment in lieu upon the termination of his employment.

The Respondent disputes the Complainant’s calculation of his working hours. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was employed to work a 38-hour week and did not work in excess of those hours. The Respondent also contended that the Complainant was late for work on an almost daily basis, which was disputed by the Complainant.

The Complainant accepted that he was absent on sick leave for three days in early September and for a further 13.5 days between late September and October 2024. However that has no bearing on the calculation of his annual leave.

In considering this complaint, I note that the Complainant’s calculation of his annual leave entitlement is based on a 45-hour working week. However, the Respondent maintains that the Complainant’s contractual working week was 38 hours and that he did not work additional hours beyond this. In the absence of documentary evidence demonstrating that the Complainant worked a 45-hour week on a regular basis, I find that it is appropriate to calculate the Complainant’s annual leave entitlement on the basis of the Respondent’s stated 38-hour working week.

The Complainant worked for the Respondent for a total of 19 weeks. Under the provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, an employee is entitled to annual leave calculated at 8% of hours worked, subject to the statutory maximum.

On the basis of a 38-hour working week over 19 weeks, the Complainant worked a total of 722 hours. Eight percent of 722 hours is 57.76 hours of annual leave.

Based on the Complainant’s normal working day of approximately 7.6 hours (38 hours divided by five days), this equates to 7.6 days of annual leave. 7.6 days amounts to € 579.12.

Accordingly, I find that the  complaint is well founded.. |

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.

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

| CA 68072 -001 The complaint fails.

CA 68072 – 003  The complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant € 762.00

CA 68072 – 004 The complaint fails.

CA 68072 – 006 The complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant € 381.00

CA 68072 – 010 The complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant € 579.12 |

Dated:   16/03/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll

Key Words:

| Protected Disclosure, Terms of Employment, Annual Leave, Reasonable Belief. Burden of Proof. |