ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

---

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058203

Parties:

| **** | Complainant | Respondent |
| Parties | Bartlomiej Seweryn | The Portlaoise Pantry Limited |

| Representatives | Represented herself | Represented by a director |

Complaint:

| 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-00070736-002 | 10/04/2025 |

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/01/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne

Procedure:

In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, this complaint was assigned to me by the Director General.  I conducted a remote hearing on January 19th 2026 and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint.  The complainant, Ms Bartlomiej Seweryn, attended the hearing alone and represented herself.  Her former employer, the Portlaoise Pantry Limited, was represented by the owner of the business, Mr Mark Healy.

While the parties are named in this Decision, from here on, I will refer to Ms Seweryn as “the complainant” and to the Portlaoise Panty as “the respondent.”

Background:

| The complainant worked as a kitchen porter in the respondent’s restaurant.  She commenced on March 29th 2024 and she resigned on February 5th 2025.  She worked between 22 and 24 hours per week, and her hourly rate was €13.50.

At the hearing, the complainant said that, when she was at work around Christmas 2024, she didn’t always get a break after 4.5 hours.  She said that she got her breaks after five hours and sometimes after 5.5 hours.  The owner of the restaurant, Mr Healy, agreed with the complainant’s evidence, saying that the month of December was very busy.  He had a record of when the complainant got her breaks, which he read out at the hearing.

In October 2024, Mr Healy said that the complainant was at work on 11 days and that she didn’t get her break before 4.5 hours on five of those days.

In November, she was at work on nine days and she didn’t get her break before 4.5 hours on three days.

In December, the complainant was at work on eight days and she didn’t get her break before 4.5 hours on five of those days.

In January 2025, the complainant was at work on seven days and she didn’t get her break before 4.5 hours on two days.

When I asked Mr Healy why the complainant didn’t get a break before 4.5 hours, he said that she generally started work at 9.00am and that the time for a break landed at lunchtime, which was very busy.  He said that occasionally, the complainant got a break before 12.00, but if this didn’t occur, it was difficult to roster a break during the busy lunchtime.  Mr Healy said that the complainant always got a break of 30 minutes after working six hours.

On January 8th 2025, the complainant wrote to Mr Healy, enquiring about the policy on breaks in the workplace.  She was concerned that she was expected to work more than 4.5 hours before she was rostered for a break.  In her email, she asked for a mediator to intervene to clarify how breaks were organised in the kitchen.

Mr Healy replied to the complainant the same day and outlined his understanding of the law regarding breaks during the working day.  Mr Healy referred to s.12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act and he summarised his understanding of the law as follows:

§  If an employee works more than 4.5 hours but less than six hours, they are entitled to a break of 15 minutes.

§  If an employee works more than six hours, they are entitled to a 30 minute break.

Mr Healy said that he had a discussion with the complainant about the breaks issue, and she advised him to re-read the legislation.  He said that he phoned the information service of the WRC and he got confirmation that his understanding of the breaks situation was correct. |

Findings and Conclusions:

| The Relevant Law

Section 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act places a statutory obligation on employers to ensure that an employee is permitted to take breaks as follows:

(1) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes.

(2) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 6 hours without allowing him or her a break of at least 30 minutes; such a break may include the break referred to in subsection (1).

(3) The Minister may by regulations provide, as respects a specified class or classes of employee, that the minimum duration of the break to be allowed to such an employee under subsection (2) shall be more than 30 minutes (but not more than 1 hour).

(4) A break allowed to an employee at the end of the working day shall not be regarded as satisfying the requirement contained in subsection (1) or (2).

This complaint was submitted to the WRC on April 10th 2025, and, in accordance with s.41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, the timeframe for which I have jurisdiction to consider a complaint is the six months before it was submitted.  The reckonable period is therefore from October 11th 2024 until April 10th 2025.  As the complainant resigned from her job on February 5th 2025, the relevant timeframe for consideration of a complaint about breaks at work is from October 11th 2024 until February 5th 2025.

Based on the information submitted by Mr Healy at the hearing, it is apparent that, on 15 of the 35 days that the complainant was at work between October 1st 2024 and February 5th 2025, she didn’t get a break before 4.5 hours.

Findings

During the hearing, it became clear from Mr Healy’s evidence that he interpreted s.12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act as meaning that an employee may be required to work for six hours before they are entitled to a break of 30 minutes.  What the law requires however, is for an employee not to be required to work for more than 4.5 hours without a break of 15 minutes.  An employee who works for six hours is entitled to a break of 30 minutes, and this may include the 15 minutes provided within or at the end of 4.5 hours.

As Mr Healy conceded that there were breaches of s.12 of the Act on 15 days during the reckonable timeframe, I am satisfied that there is substance to the complainant’s case. |

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

| I have concluded that, on approximately 40% of the days that she was employed between October 2024 and January 2025, the complainant prevented from availing of her entitlement to a break after 4.5 hours and, on this basis, there was a breach of s.12 the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.  I decide therefore, that the respondent is to pay the complainant compensation of €650.00, which is equivalent to approximately two weeks’ wages.  As this award is compensation for a breach of a statutory right, it is not subject to deductions for tax, PRSI or USC. |

Dated: 11th of March 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne

Key Words:

| Rest breaks at work |