ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008899
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Driver | A Courier Company |
Representatives | In person | Did not attend |
Complaints/Disputes:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 |
CA-00011122-001 | 04/05/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 |
CA-00011122-002 | 04/05/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 |
CA-00011122-003 | 04/05/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 |
CA-00011122-004 | 04/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/10/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaints and disputes to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and disputes and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints and disputes.
CA-00011122-001
Background:
The complainant is a HGV Driver. He is paid €10 gross per hour. The complainant contends that his current employer took over a contract from his previous employer on 13th October 2016. The complainant contends he was employed by the previous employer for five years until October 2016. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant contends that the Respondent is in breach of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012. The complainant stated that the breach relates to working in excess of 48 hours per week over the 17-week reference period. The complainant also contends that there were several occasions when he did not get the appropriate rest periods and breaks in line with the regulations. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing and was not represented. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I asked the complainant at the adjudication hearing if he had ever worked in excess of 60 hours per week or if he had ever worked in excess of 48 hours on average over the 17 week reference period. The complainant stated that he never worked more than 60 hours in any given week and that he did not work in excess of 48 hours on average over any 17-week reference period. On that basis, I find that the Respondent did not breach the regulations. The complainant was unable to provide any details of the alleged breach in respect of rest periods and breaks except to say that there were several occasions when he did not receive same. As the complainant is unable to substantiate his claim, I find that the compliant cannot succeed. |
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Decision:
Having considered the complainant’s submission and the evidence adduced at the hearing of this matter, I decide that the complaint is not well founded. |
CA-00011122-002
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant contends that the Respondent did not provide him with a copy of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012. The complainant also contends that the Respondent failed to explain the specific details to him in relation to excluded hours/ calculation of working time etc. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant alleges that he was not provided with a copy of the regulations from the Respondent. Regulation 11 provides as follows: “An employer of a mobile worker shall notify the worker of the provisions of these Regulations and the provisions of any collective agreement, employment regulation order or registered employment agreement which is capable of application to that worker and keep available for inspection at all reasonable times a copy of these Regulations and any applicable employment regulation order or registered employment agreement Regulation 18 provides as follows: A decision of an adjudication officer under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of Regulation 5,8,9,10,11 or 12 shall do one or more of the following, namely – (a) declare that the complaint was or was not well founded; (b) require the employer to comply with the provisions of these Regulations that have been contravened, or (c) require the employer to pay the mobile worker compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 104 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the mobile worker’s employment (calculated in accordance with requirements under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 );
|
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Decision:
Having considered the complainant’s submission and evidence on this issue, I require the Respondent to comply with regulation 11. I make no further award. |
CA-00011122-003
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
This dispute concerns the supply of work clothes to the worker. The worker’s position is that when new uniforms were being distributed, he was not supplied with enough warm clothing and raised the issue with the employer. The worker contends that he had to use an old jacket of a previous employer in the absence of a suitable jacket but that this was taken from him by Management. The worker contends that he was supplied with a Fleece but it was too big. He contends that he became ill as a result of not having a suitable jacket. The worker contends that he missed three days of work on account of his illness and did not receive any pay for his absence. He is seeking €400 in compensation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I find that although the worker raised a formal grievance with the employer, there is no evidence that the process has concluded in accordance with internal grievance procedures. |
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Recommendation:
On the basis that it appears that the internal grievance process has not concluded in this matter, I do not consider it appropriate to make a Recommendation on the issue. |
CA-00011122-004
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
This element of the complaint was withdrawn at the adjudication hearing. |
Dated: 5th December 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012, Reference period, working time, breaks. |