A pig farm worker has been awarded over €11,500 by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) after it was found that he did not receive paid annual leave that he was entitled to.

This amount is part of the overall WRC finding awarding the worker almost €14,000 following a number of complaints against his former employer.

The WRC adjudicated on this case between September 10 and 16, 2024.

Ryszard Kulbaka made several complaints against the respondent Drumloman Pork Ltd. The complainant ultimately withdrew several of them, leaving the WRC to adjudicate on four complaints.

The four complaints related to unpaid annual leave, unpaid public holidays, lack of contract or terms of employment, and deduction of wages.

The complainant affirmed (through the use of a Polish interpreter) that he worked on the respondent's pig farm in Co. Cavan from December 2017 to November 2023, where his job was to feed pigs and piglets and disinfect holding pens. His pay was the statutory minimum wage.

He claimed that he did not receive a written contract or terms of employment in writing for the six years that he worked for the respondent, and that he only received a small portion of his annual leave entitlement in each of those years.

The complainant submitted that the annual leave he was entitled to but did not receive amounted to €11,520.65.

The complainant denied that his employer had informed him that his annual leave entitlement would be lost if he did not take leave. He also claimed that, as no contract had been provided, he was never on notice that his annual leave provision needed to be taken within a set period of time.

In a separate complaint on unpaid public holidays, the former pig farm worker said he was entitled to be paid €90.40 for the October Bank Holiday in 2023 but was not paid.

In the final complaint, the worker alleged he had suffered an unlawful deduction of wages in the amount of €36.61 for weekend hours worked but that were not reflected on his payslips.

The respondent conceded on two of the complaints, relating to the unpaid public holiday and the deduction of wages.

In respect of the complaint concerning the alleged lack of contract, the respondent denied not providing a written contract, had said he had provided the complainant with a contact within a few weeks of the latter commencing work.

The respondent displayed a copy of a contract on his computer screen during the online WRC adjudication hearing. However, he did not send a copy to the WRC.

A representative for the complainant alleged that, while the contract produced during the hearing included the complainant's correctly-spelled name, the respondent had never spelled his former employee's name correctly on payslips or any other document.

The complainant's representative also alleged that the contract shown during the hearing was produced solely for that purpose and never existed prior to the complainant taking this case.

The respondent denied this, while saying that any errors in spelling the complainant's name were mistakes by his administration team and not by him personally.

On the unpaid annual leave, the respondent did not deny that there was a shortfall, but contended that the worker continued to work despite being warned he would lose annual leave he did not take.

When asked by the WRC adjudicator why he thought the complainant would continue to work despite having the option of not working for four weeks in a year while still being paid, the respondent said he did not know why the complainant would have done this.

In coming to conclusion on these four complaints, the adjudicator found in favour of the complainant on all four. In two of these cases, the findings were made solely due to the concessions made by the respondent (on the unpaid public holiday and the deduction of wages).

On the unpaid annual leave, the adjudicator, citing case law from the Court of Justice of the EU, found that the respondent's evidence did not show either that he exercised due diligence to ensure that the complainant took annual leave for each year he worked, nor did he prove that the complainant was warned by him that his failure to take leave would result in him losing it.

The adjudicator also said that the respondent "seemed not fully aware as how fundamental annual leave is as a social right".

The adjudicator found the complainant's case well founded and awarded him €11,520.65.

With respect to the complaint relating to alleged non-provision of a written contract, the adjudicator said that the respondent had been advised that he was obliged to provide the WRC with any documentary evidence that he wished to rely on, but despite this did not provide a copy of the contract he claimed he furnished to the worker.

The adjudicator said that, as she was not allowed to consider the document, she was satisfied that the respondent had not proved he had provided a contract to the worker. For that reason the WRC awarded the complainant four weeks' gross salary of €2,245.

The total monetary amount awarded to the worker is €13,892.66 in respect of the four complaints.