Retired worker pursuing former employer for 15 years worth of unpaid tea breaks

Darragh Mc Donagh

A retired worker is pursuing his former employer for compensation in respect of 15 years’ worth of unpaid tea breaks, for which he claims he should have been remunerated.

The breaks, which varied in duration from 15 to 20 minutes, are at the centre of a dispute before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) between David Hogan and Moovmor Engineering Limited in Kildare.

Mr Hogan has filed a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, claiming that he is owed around €875 by the company in respect of tea breaks that he took in the course of his employment over the past 15 years.

An adjudication hearing of the WRC on Tuesday was told that workers at Moovmor had been paid for their tea breaks up to 2004, after which it was agreed that this practice would stop.

However, Mr Hogan claims that he never agreed to this change and did not sign contracts issued in 2012 and 2017, which explicitly stated that employees would not be remunerated for tea breaks.

Derek Boyce, managing director of Moovmor Engineering, told the WRC that employees had previously been paid for 15-minute tea breaks, which had been extended to 20 minutes at some stage.

However, a letter was issued to staff members in 2002 outlining proposals and seeking feedback regarding reductions in wages and changes to working hours.

“At the time, everybody agreed to what we had suggested, except Dave [Hogan],” he said, but added that Mr Hogan had subsequently indicated that he would “go along with” the new arrangements.

The unpaid tea breaks were not provided for in writing until new contracts were issued in 2012 and 2017, but Mr Hogan did not sign these.

Mr Boyce said he was never made aware of any dispute by Mr Hogan.

He recalled telling Mr Hogan that he would be paid extra if he came in earlier in the morning, but he refused to do so, saying that it didn’t suit him.

Cillian McGovern, representing Mr Hogan, argued that Moovmor Engineering had made unilateral changes to the complainant’s contract without his agreement. He pointed to the fact that the contracts that were issued remained unsigned. Mr Hogan recently retired from the company.

Peter Dunlea, representing the company, accepted that there had been changes introduced in contracts that the complainant did not sign, but argued that a signature was not required for these to be enforced.

“[Mr Hogan] was aware of these [changes] in the region of 10 to 15 years ago… and so he accepted them,” he said.

“The law requires that it be presented in writing, not that it must be signed. In the present case, the complainant clearly accepted these [terms] decades ago.

He worked under them for 15 years,” added Mr Dunlea, claiming that there was no case to answer for the company.

The hearing was adjourned and a decision on the complaint will be issued by WRC adjudication officer, Penelope McGrath, in the coming weeks.