FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 28(1), ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997 PARTIES : CASTLEROCK MOTORS LIMITED - AND - DOGAN GECIM (REPRESENTED BY ALAN LAWES) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Decision r-128892/128894/128896/128897/128899-wt-12/RG.
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 1st August, 2013. The Court heard the appeal on the 7th March, 2014, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Dogan Gecim, (the Complainant) under Section 28(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 against a number of Rights Commissioner Decisions numbered r-128892/128894/128896/128897/128899-wt-12/RG issued on 16th July 2013. The Complainant lodged his appeal with this Court on 1st August 2013. The case was scheduled for hearing on 11th October 2013. However, the Court adjourned the hearing to allow the Complainant make a written submission setting out the basis of his appeal. The Court reconvened on 8th January 2014. On that occasion the Complainant was represented by Mr Alan Lawes who drew the Court’s attention to the language difficulty the Complainant had presenting his case and understanding the proceedings. The Court adjourned the hearing to allow for the appointment of an interpreter to assist the Claimant and the Court. The matter finally came on for hearing on 7th March 2014.
Mr Lawes made an application to have the case remitted to the Rights Commissioner. He stated that the Claimant was disadvantaged at the hearing as he did not understand the proceedings and no interpreter was offered to him to assist him or the Commissioner at that time. The Court advised the Complainant that the Act did not make provision for the Court to remit the matter to the Rights Commissioner and the case proceeded.
Castlerock Motors Ltd (the Respondent) is a company operating in the motor trade. It operates premises in Lusk and Swords Co. Dublin. The Swords premises was let out in 2012 due to a downturn in the motor sales industry.
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent Company as a general assistant. He opened and closed the premises, moved cars on and off the forecourt and sourced, collected and delivered parts as required.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent Company contravened Sections 12, 14 and 15 of the Act in the relevant period.
Section 12 deals with breaks at work, Section 14 deals with arrangements for working on Sunday and Section 15 of the Act sets the maximum working week at 48 hours.
In the course of giving evidence to the Court the Complainant stated that none of the complained of infringements occurred in the six months prior to the date on which he filed the complaint under the Act with the Rights Commissioner.
Section 27 of the Act states [in relevant part]: -
- (4) A Rights Commissioner shall not entertain a complaint under this Section if it is presented to the Commissioner after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
12th May, 2014______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.