FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 27 (1), NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT, 2000 AND 2015 PARTIES : TEAM OBAIR LIMITED - AND - WIKTOR GLOGIEWICZ (REPRESENTED BY BLAZEJ NOWAK) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No: ADJ-00006964.
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal by Wiktor Glogiewicz ("the Complainant") against the Decision of an Adjudication Officer Ref Number ADJ-00006964. He complained to the Workplace Relations Commission that Team Obair Limited ("the Respondent"), his employer, infringed his rights under the National Minimum Wage Acts 2000 and 2015. The Adjudication Officer issued her Decision on the complaint on 30 August 2017.
The Complainant appealed that Decision to this Court. The case came on for hearing before the Court on 16 November 2017. The Court's Determinations is set out below.
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Wiktor Glogiewicz against an Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00006964 given under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 ("the Act") in a claim that he was receiving below the minimum wage.
Complainant’s case
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 23rd September 2013 and was assigned to a Client of the Respondent on the northside of Dublin. Prior to commencing his employment, the Claimant attended at the Respondent’s Head Office on the southside of Dublin on the 19thSeptember 2013 for a two-hour induction.
It is the Claimant's case that he should be paid for these hours and that the Respondent’s Head Office at which he only attended on one occasion prior to commencing employment was his workplace. On that basis he contended that he was entitled on a daily basis to consider the time spent travelling to his place of work on the northside of Dublin as travelling time. If this time was counted as working time his average hourly rate would have been below the minimum wage. The Complainant also claimed expenses under Section 26 of the Act.
Respondent’s case
The Complainant commenced employment on the 23rdSeptember 2013 and was assigned to one site on the northside of Dublin where he worked until his employment came to an end on 13th June 2016. He was paid above the minimum wage for the duration of his employment.
Discussion
It was accepted by both parties that the Complainant commenced employment on the 23rdSeptember 2013 and for the duration of his employment he was employed at the one site on the northside of Dublin. The Complainant’s representative could not identify any breaches of the Act that arose during his period of employment and so therefore the appeal fails.
Finding
The Court finds that no breach of the Act occurred within his employment period with the Respondent. On that basis the issue of expenses under Section 26 of the Act does not fall to be addressed.
The within appeal fails and the decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
CR______________________
6 December, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.