This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

DWT2010

FULL RECOMMENDATION


WTC/20/39
ADJ-00025686 CA-00032599-001/002
DETERMINATION NO. DWT2010

SECTION 28 (1), ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997


PARTIES :
J MURPHY AND SON HAULAGE

- AND -

JOHN GRANT


DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell
Employer Member: Ms Doyle
Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00025686.

BACKGROUND:

2. An Adjudication Officer hearing took place on 30 January 2020 and a Decision was issued on 24 April 2020. The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 11 May 2020 in accordance with section 28(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 November 2020. The following is the Determination of the Court:-





DETERMINATION :

Determination

This is an appeal by J Murphy and Son Haulage (the Respondent) against Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00025686 pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the Act). It is his complaint that he did not get paid for two Public Holidays being the May and June Public holidays in 2019.The Adjudication Officer upheld his claim and made an award of €280 . The complaint was lodged with the WRC on the 27th November 2019.

The cognisable period for the lodging of a claim under the Act is 28th May 2019 to the 27th November 2019 the date the claim was lodged with the WRC. The Complainant’s employment ceased on the 10th July 2019

.

Complainant’s case

It is the Complainant’s case that he did not get paid for the May and June Public holidays. The Complainant confirmed to the Court, that his rate of pay for Public holidays was €100.

Respondent’s case

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant and been paid for the May Public Holiday and submitted a payslip to confirm same. It was also their submission that the May Public Holiday did not fall within the cognisable period. The Respondent accepted that they had not paid the Complainant for the June Public holiday but told the Court that if he was due payment, they would give it to him. In respect of what was due to be paid it was their submission that the daily rate less subsistence was €98 but that they would not have a dispute over the €2 differential.

Discussion

It is clear that the Complainant has an entitlement under the Act to be paid for the June Public Holiday. The May Public Holiday is outside the cognisable period before the Court.

Decision

The Court Determines that the Complainant should be paid €100 compensation in respect of the breach arising from the non-payment of the June Public Holiday.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly. The Court so Determines.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
NJ ______________________
18 November 2020 Deputy Chairman


NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Noel Jordan, Court Secretary.