SECTION 28(1), ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY BRUCE ST. JOHN BLAKE, SOLICITOR)
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Decision WT3161/00/MR.
2. The worker's claim is that he did not receive adequate compensation in the form of appropriate pay for Sunday work nor was he allowed to take adequate daily or weekly rest periods which were in breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. He was also required to work in excess of the statutory maximum number of hours.
The worker also claims that he did not receive the appropriate annual leave to which he was entitled under the above Act.
The Company rejected the claim on the basis that it was out of time in accordance with Section 27(4) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Rights Commissioner issued his decision on the 22nd of October, 2001, as follows:-
"In accordance with Section 27 of the Act, I hereby declare that this complaint is out of time."
On the 12th of November, 2001, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Decision to the Labour Court under Section 28(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The Court heard the appeal on the 12th of March, 2002.
3. 1. The worker would have submitted his complaint earlier but for a fear on his part that a complaint might affect his prospects of becoming permanently employed with the Company.
2. The worker did not receive the proper rate for working Sunday. He was also required to work in excess of the statutory number of hours contrary to the Act.
3. The Company was in breach of a number of Sections of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
4. The Company has availed of a statutory technicality with regard to a time limit in which there is a discretion that a complaint under the Act can be entertained within a period of 12 months after the expiration of the initial 6 month period which a complaint to a Rights Commissioner may be entertained in normal circumstances.
4.. 1. The worker was paid a premium payment in lieu of holiday pay.
2. The claim was not submitted within the 6 month period as specified by Section 27(4) of the Act.
3. The Company requests the Court to uphold the Rights Commissioner's Decision.
The Court, having considered the written and oral arguments made by the parties, finds that the appellant has not shown reasonable cause as to why the complaint was not made within the required time limit.
The Court, therefore, rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights Commissioner's Decision.
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd May, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.