INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 19, EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ROAD TRANSPORT) (ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME OF PERSONS PERFORMING MOBILE ROAD TRANSPORT ACTIVITIES) REGULATIONS, 2012
RUSKIM SEAFOODS LTD
(REPRESENTED BY PENINSULA BUSINESS SERVICES)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES)
Chairman: Mr Haugh
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr Shanahan
1. An appeal against a Rights Commissioner's Decision no: r-137366-mrt-13/JW.
2. This is a joint appeal of a Rights Commissioner Decision no: r-137366-mrt-13/JW made pursuant to Section 19 European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations, 2012. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th September 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:
This is an appeal by by Sarunas Juodris (hereafter the Claimant) against the decision of a Rights Commissioner in his claims under the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 36/2012)). The Respondent has also cross-appealed against the same decision.
The Claimant presented a multiplicity of claims to the Rights Commissioner under a number of enactments and in respect of various alleged infringements of those enactments. The claims were based on overlapping facts.
The appeals under each of the enactments were conjoined by the Court and heard together.
This Determination relates to the Claimant’s under the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 36/2012) (“the Regulations”).
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a delivery truck driver from 17 September 2007 until 7 June 2015. The Respondent is an importer and distributor of poultry, meat and fish throughout Europe.
The claims presented to the Rights Commissioner under the Regulations were as follows: -
- 1. That the Claimant was required to work in excess of 60 hours in some weeks and was required to work 48 hours on average per week in contravention of Regulation 5 of the Regulations;
2. That the Claimant frequently did not receive: (i) a break lasting at least 45 minutes when the road transport activities he was engaged in exceeded 9 consecutive hours or (ii) a break of at least 30 minutes after 6 consecutive hours of work, in contravention of Regulation 8 of the Regulations;
3 That the Claimant did not receive daily and weekly periods of rest in accordance with Regulation 9 of the Regulations;
4. That the Claimant was not provided with notification in relation to the Regulations contrary to Regulation 11 of the Regulations;
5. That the Claimant did not receive records of his hours of work in contravention of Regulation 12(f) of the Regulations.
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the evidence adduced at the hearing of the appeal, the Court has reached the following conclusions:
The appeal under this head was not pursued before the Court.
The Court accepts the Respondent’s submission that the decision to take rest breaks at the appropriate juncture in the course of working day was at the discretion of, and solely in the control of, the Claimant himself. The Rights Commissioner’s decision in this regard is overturned.
The Respondent conceded that the evidence in relation to daily start and finish times presented on the Claimant’s behalf was correct. This aspect of the complaint is therefore upheld. The Court sees no reason to interfere with the award of the Rights Commissioner of €1,000.00 in respect of the breach of this Regulation.
The Respondent asserted that the Claimant had received “CPC training that informed [him] of the rights and obligations conferred on [him] by virtue of the Statutory Instrument” but proffered nothing by way of evidence in support of this assertion. The Rights Commissioner had found that the Claimant had not been “notified and advised in detail of the provisions of SI 36 of 2012”. The Court affirms the Rights Commissioner’s decision in this regard and sees no reason to interfere with the award of the Rights Commissioner of €1,000.00 in respect of the breach of this Regulation.
This Regulation imposes a range of obligations on the employer of a “mobile worker”, within the meaning of the Regulations, to maintain records that are adequate to demonstrate that the Regulations are being complied with. The Claimant contends that the records maintained by the Respondent in his case “are not in the statutory format”. S.I. 36/2012 does not prescribe a particular format in which the records required to be kept thereunder should be maintained. Having considered those records put in evidence by the Respondent, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s decision that no breach of Regulation 12 of the Regulations has been established,
The decision of the Rights Commissioner is varied in the terms of this Determination.
The Court so determines
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd October, 2015______________________
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.