ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00022900
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An HGV Driver | A Transport Company |
Representatives | No Appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant | No Appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00029431-001 | 03/07/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/10/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant in this case is a Lithuanian HGV Driver who submitted a complaint that he was required to work more than the maximum permitted number of hours for the duration of his 2 years and 7 months of employment. The Respondent in the case did not respond to the claim of file a defence. On 26 September 2019, both parties were invited to attend a hearing scheduled for 10.30 am on 31 December 2019. I attended to hold this hearing, but neither party was in attendance, nor had either party sent a representative. I allowed a 30-minute waiting time to allow for any eventualities. Neither party had informed the Post Registration Unit of any reason for their non-appearance. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted that he had worked 60 to 70 hours weekly over days and nights and sought adjudication in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The Complainant did not attend the hearing, nor pro-offered a reason for his non-appearance. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not answer the claim, nor file a defence. The Respondent did not attend the hearing, nor pro-offer a reason for this non-appearance. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In preparation for the case, I studied the complaint form. The claim was marked out as complaint under the Act but was not supported by any particulars. I found it unreasonable that the complainant did not attend the hearing in his own case. I am satisfied that he was properly notified at the address he first offered the WRC on 3 July,2019, the date on which his complaint was received. It is regrettable that neither party chose to attend the hearing. I have no option only to find against the complainant and declare that his complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, requires that I decide in relation to the complaint in accordance with Section 15(1) of that Act. I have found the claim is not well founded. |
Dated: 12th December 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
Claim for a breach of Section 15 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 |