FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991 PARTIES : AER LINGUS (IRELAND) LTD - AND - PAUL CANNING DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No r-159437-pw-15JOC
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal of a an Adjudication Officer's Decision No: r-159437-pw-15JOC made pursuant to Section 7(1) of the payment of Wages Act, 1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court on 13 July 2016 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
Background to the Appeal
This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal brought by Mr Canning (“the Complainant”) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer issued on 18 January 2016. The Notice of Appeal was received by the Court by email on Sunday 28 February 2016. The Adjudication Officer found that the claims referred by the Complainant under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”) were not well founded.
The Complainant was employed by Aer Lingus (Ireland) Limited (“the Respondent”) for 20 hours per week as an entry level Team Member A, Ramp Agent at Cork Airport, pursuant to a fixed-term contract of employment. He was so employed from 12 May 2015 until 1 November 2015. The Complainant’s written contract of employment provided for rest breaks in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 as follows:
- “(i) Your standard working week will be 20 hours per week exclusive of all breaks, calculated over a period commensurate with your roster schedule.
(ii) The number and length of breaks are determined locally and may differ depending on where you are working at any given time. All breaks are scheduled at Management discretion according to the needs of the operation. In accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, you will be entitled to a daily rest break of 11 hours in every 24 hour period and a weekly rest period of at least 24 hours in every period of seven days or two rest periods of 24 hours in each fortnight preceded by a daily rest break.
(iii) You will be entitled to an unpaid break at work of 15 minutes after having worked 4 hours and 30 minutes and 30 minutes having worked 6 hours (which includes the earlier 15 minute break) …”
The Complainant submitted to the Court that the Respondent misused the provisions in his contract in relation to unpaid breaks in order to extend the duration of breaks at his expense as a ‘cost-saving mechanism’ during periods when he was required to remain airside at the Respondent’s disposal in anticipation of the arrival of an incoming flight. The Complainant also complained that the effect of the contractual provision in relation to unpaid breaks was that that he had to work ‘longer shifts or more shifts’ in order to accumulate his 20 contracted hours and it was ‘not viable’ for him to make himself available on that basis.
Respondent’s Submission
The Respondent submits that the Complainant was paid for a minimum of 20 hours’ work each week. It accepts that there were occasions when the Complainant was given a 30-minute break when he reported for a 5-hours shift and the time was deducted but this was never at the expense of the employee. The Respondent accepts that it was not unusual to assign the Complainant his breaks during quiet periods at the airport. Such quiet periods could exceed 60 minutes given the nature of air traffic patterns at Cork Airport. However, the Respondent never deducted more than 30 minutes’ unpaid break even if the actual break allowed was longer. Likewise, the Respondent states that it never deducted more than 30 minutes from any shift where the Complainant worked 10 hours or less.
Discussion and Conclusions
The Court is satisfied that the provisions of the Complainant’s contract in relation to breaks are clear and unambiguous and were applied by the Respondent in a manner consistent with the minimum relevant requirements of the Organisation of Working Time 1997. The Complainant failed to adduce any evidence to the Court that demonstrated that the Respondent had made an unlawful deduction from his wages arising from the manner in which it allowed for his unpaid breaks, or at all.
Decision
The Complainant’s appeal fails and the decision of the Adjudication Officer stands.
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
20 July 2016______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.