DWT254

WTC/24/102

DECISION  NO.  DWT254

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

Chairman:	Ms O'Donnell
Employer Member:	Mr Marie
Worker Member:	Mr Bell

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00025414 (CA-00032192-001)

BACKGROUND:

An Adjudication Officer hearing took place on 20 July 2023 and a Decision was issued on 19 September 2024. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 25 September 2024 in accordance with section 28(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. A Labour Court hearing took place on 22 January 2025. The following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

1 Background

This is an appeal by Mr Rudolf Csikos (the Complainant) against decision ADJ-00025414 – CA 000-32192-001 of an Adjudication Officer. The complaint was made pursuant to a contravention of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the Act) by his then employer Keeling’s Logistics Solutions (the Respondent).   The complaint was in respect of alleged breach of section 16 (2) of the Act, hours of work. The Adjudication Officer held that the claim was deemed legally frivolous and deemed not properly found.

The claim was lodged with the WRC on 14 November 2019, therefore the cognisable period in accordance with the Act is 15 May 2019 to 14 November 2019.

 

2 Relevant Law

 Section 42 (1) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that an Adjudication Officer may dismiss a complaint if they are of the opinion that it is frivolous.

 Section 42 (3) sets out that in such a case the Labour Court on hearing the appeal can either uphold the decision of the Adjudication Officer or annul the decision and refer the complaint to the Director General of the WRC.

 

 3. Summary of Complainant’s submission

 The Complainant submitted that he worked on average more than 8 hours a night on a number of occasions during the cognisable period contrary to the requirements of the Act.

 

 4. Summary of Respondent’s submission

 The Respondent stated that they rejected the claims.  They opened records to the Court showing the hours he had worked for the relevant period. The accepted that based on that documentation the average was in excess of eight hours but indicated that they had not discounted breaks in the document they were relying on.  It was their submission that the Adjudication Officer was right to declare the complaint frivolous.

 

5. Discussion.

The only issue that falls to the Court to determine is whether or not this complaint is frivolous. The Court determines that the Complainant has identified potential breaches of the Act during the relevant period in 2019. The Court therefore finds that the complaint is not frivolous.

 

6. Determination

The Court annuls the decision of the Adjudication Officer and returns this complaint to the Director General

 The Court so decides

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
FC	______________________
18 February 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.