|
FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : GO-AHEAD TRANSPORT SERVICES (DUBLIN) LIMITED DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No(s) ADJ-00029000 CA-00038554-001 This is an appeal by Ms Sandra Duggan (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00029000; CA-00038554-001) under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (‘the Act’). The Complainant was successful at first instance and was awarded compensation of €100.00. The Complainant is employed by Go-Ahead Transport Services (Dublin) Limited (‘the Respondent’) as a bus driver. On 23 May 2020, the Complainant was scheduled to have a rest break of approximately two hours, commencing at 13.32 pm, at a bus terminus located in Belfield Campus. Normally, the Respondent arranges that a bus equipped with suitable facilities is on-site at the terminus in order to permit employees to avail themselves of those facilities during their rest break. For various reasons, that bus was not present in Belfield when the Complainant was there during her two-hour break on 23 May 2020. The Complainant’s case is that she was unable to avail herself of her entitlements in accordance with section 12 of the Act because of the absence of facilities. The Law Section 12 of the Act provides: “12.— (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).” Application of the Law to the Facts It is common case that the Complainant commenced driving duties at 10.15 am on 23 May 2020 and stopped driving in order to commence her break when she arrived at the terminus in Belfield at 13.32 pm. She resumed her driving duties at 15.27 pm after a break of approximately two hours. It Section 12 of the Act makes provision only in relation to the minimum duration of breaks during the working day. The Complainant had a rest break during her working day on 23 May 2020 which exceeded in duration the minimum break prescribed by section 12 of the Act. It follows, therefore, that she was afforded in full her entitlements under section 12. Accordingly, the Court finds that the complaint is not well-founded. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is set aside. The Court so determines.
NOTE |
