EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Piotr Krajniak, RP1726/2009
- Claimant 1 UD1529/2009
Adam Hernik, RP835/2010
- Claimant 2 UD616/2010
Mateusz Sturgulewski, RP1069/2010
- Claimant 3 UD787/2010
Nolan Transport Limited, - Respondent
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. D. Mac Carthy S C
Members: Mr J. Hennessy
Mr F. Dorgan
heard this claim at Wexford on 4th June 2013
Claimants: O'Brien & Associates, Solicitors, Mill House, Henry Street, Limerick
Respondent: In Person
At the outset all the claims under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005 and the Organisation of Working Time, Act, 1997 were withdrawn.
The respondent company is a transport business.
First Named Claimant
He commenced employment with the respondent company as a truck driver in 2006 and had signed a contract of employment.
In 2007 working conditions changed and the claimant was forced to work with these changes and the conditions of his payments altered also. No night shift allowances were paid. He told the Tribunal that he spent most of his weekends in the company truck and was not reimbursed for working these hours. He often worked a 16 to 17 hour day.
In 2009 he had an accident at work and informed his employer. He was not allowed any time off to attend his doctor. He was absent form work on sick leave for a period of three weeks. He was not given any more work on his return to work. He tried to speak to management but felt no-one would listen. He did speak to his Manager (D) and informed him he was leaving the Manager replied “fine” and did not ask why he was leaving.
He told the Tribunal that he had no alternative but to leave his employment. The claimant gave evidence of loss.
Second Named Claimant
He commenced employment as a truck driver in December 2006 and had signed a contract of employment. He was informed his was employed on a trial period and worked a six day week, working hours were very long.
When asked if he had made a complaint regarding his working hours he replied that he had “tried to defend himself”.
He spoke to management and told them they had to comply with the law regarding working hours but was told if he did not like it he could leave.
On one return trip from England he was told to unload the truck despite having just worked a 15-hour day. He spoke to management and informed him he was not working there anymore. He told the Tribunal that he had no alternative but to leave the respondent’s employment as the respondent was not abiding by the conditions of his contract of employment.
He gave evidence of loss.
Third Named Claimant
He commenced employment as a truck driver in July 2007. After three or four months his working conditions changed. Pressure was laid upon him to work longer hours resulting in him often getting tired while driving.
He told the Tribunal that on one occasion he had to pay a fine in England for driving for too many hours without a break. He was afraid to have to pay fines and had been told by the respondent to use fake taco graphs. On one occasion he asked to return to Ireland from England but had to purchase his own ticket.
In 2008 his basic wages decreased and there were often times he was not given any work. He was asked to sign an additional contract in October 2009 but did not sign it. He did not have a copy of this contract to produce to the Tribunal on the day of the hearing.
He spoke to the Manager on the day he resigned from his employment. He stated to the Tribunal that he resigned because he would not accept the conditions of the new contract produced to him. When asked if he had invoked the grievance procedure he replied that there was none.
He gave evidence of loss.
The respondent did not give any evidence or wish to cross-examine the three claimants on their evidence adduced.
In all of the circumstances the Tribunal finds that compensation is the appropriate remedy in respect of any financial loss incurred by the claimants and attributable to the “…dismissal as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.” In particular the Tribunal is mindful of the evidence of the third-named claimant in relation to tachographs. The Tribunal awards the following compensation under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, the sum of €19,000 to Claimant 1, the sum of €10,000 to Claimant 2 and the sum of €24,000 to Claimant 3.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal