FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 28(1), ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997 PARTIES : SKY HANDLING PARTNERS LTD - AND - DARIUSZ MOZOLOWICZ DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appealing against a Rights Commissioner's Decision R-102810-Wt-11/Pob
BACKGROUND:
2. The Employee appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Decision to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 28(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 on the 19th July, 2011. The Court heard the appeal on the 9th February, 2012. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Dariusz Mozolowicz (hereafter referred to as the Claimant) against the Decision of the Rights Commissioner in his complaint against his former employer Sky Handling Partners Ltd (hereafter referred to as the Respondent) made under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the Act).
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent in the provision of services at Dublin Airport. His employment came within the ambit of the Organisation of Working Time (General Exemptions) Regulations 1998 (S.I. No. 21 of 1998) (the Regulations). These Regulations exempt,inter alia,workers engaged in the supply of services at an airport from the requirements of Sections 11, 12, 13, and 16 of the Act. Regulation 4 of the Regulations provides, in effect, that an employee covered by these exemptions shall be provided with equivalent compensatory rest.
The Complainant's employment with the Respondent terminated on 16th September, 2010. He presented the within complaint to a Rights Commissioner on 27th January, 2011. Consequently the relevant period encompassed by the claim is from 28th July 2010 until 16th September 2010.
The nature of the complaints being pursued by the Claimant are not apparent from the written submissions which he filed with the Court nor are they apparent from the Decision of the Rights Commissioner who heard the complaints at first instance.
At that hearing of the appeal the Court invited the Claimant to explain in his own words what he was alleging against the Respondent. He told the Court that his complaints relate to the Respondent's failure to provide him with a rest period of at least 11 consecutive hours in a period of 24 hours on 28th - 29th July 2010 and on 1st - 2nd August 2010.
The Claimant did not receive an 11 hour break between the ending of his working day on 28th July 2010 and the commencement of working day on 29th July 2010. It is also clear that he did not receive an 11 hour break between finishing work on 1st August and commencing work on 2nd August 2010.
However, the Regulations exempt the Claimant from the requirements of s.11 of the Act. It is also clear on information furnished to the Court that the Claimant received equivalent compensatory rest at the first available opportunity after being required to work without an 11 hour break on the dates in question.
In these circumstances the complaint is not well founded. The appeal is accordingly, disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th February, 2012______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.