FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 28 (1), ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997 PARTIES : JOHNSTOWN GARDEN CENTRE LTD (REPRESENTED BY GRAHAME PICKETT, H.R. CONSULTANT) - AND - ALA BERGHIE (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No r-158253/159376-wt-15.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 9th May 2016 in accordance with Section 28(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of June 2016. The following is the determination of the Court:-
DETERMINATION:
This matter comes before the Court by way of an appeal of the Decision of an Adjudication Officer in a complaint made by Ala Berghie (the Appellant) against her former employer Johnstown Garden Centre Limited (the Respondent) under the Organisation of Working time Act 1997 (the Act).
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent from 5thOctober 2010 to 6thJuly 2015.
The Appellant complained that she had not been afforded rests and intervals at work in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and that she was not provided with information in relation to working time in accordance with Section 17 of the Act.
The Adjudication Officer decided that the complaint was well founded in part.
The Case
The Appellant at the hearing confirmed that her complaint as regards a breach of Section 17 of the Act was withdrawn and consequently no appeal of the Adjudicator’s decision in that regard was being pursued.
The Appellant agreed at the hearing that the complaint as regards a breach of Section 12 of the Act within the cognisable period for the complaint related to (a) five occasions when the Appellant took her break 15 minutes or more after she should have been afforded her break, (b) eight occasions when the Appellant took her break between 0 and 15 minutes after she should have been afforded her break.
The Respondent at the hearing accepted that the Act had been breached on those occasions.
Discussion
The Court notes that no complaint is before the Court that the Appellant did not receive the breaks she was entitled to under the Act. The complaint was refined by assent at the hearing to a contention, which was accepted by the Respondent, that the Appellant was delayed on 13 occasions when taking her breaks
Determination
The Court determines that the Appellant’s complaint as regards a breach of Section 12 of the Act is well founded.
The Court for the reasons set out above determines that the Appellant’s complaint that the Respondent failed to comply with Section 17 of the Act is not well founded.
The Court determines that compensation should be paid to the Appellant in accordance with Section 27(3)(c) of the Act. The Court considers that the amount of compensation which is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances of this case is €300.
The Decision of the Adjudication Officer, for the reasons set out above, is varied.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
22nd July 2016______________________
JKChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.