ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053465

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Declan Healy	Raymond Carrigy

Representatives

In person

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065201-001	05/08/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00065201-002	05/08/2024
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-00065201-003	05/08/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065201-004	05/08/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00065205-001	05/08/2024
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-00065285-001	08/08/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/11/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background:

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a tour bus driver from 1st April 2024 to 29th July 2024. The complaints allege breaches of the complainant’s employment rights. The complainant has also submitted other complaints in respect of his employment with the respondent. (ADJ -00053652 refers).

Post hearing submissions

Further information was sought from both parties following the conclusion of the adjudication hearing. As of 26th May 2025, the necessary information has been received in relation to the name of the employer and in relation to other matters relating to weekly rest periods. While the complainant sought a further hearing and while this was scheduled and adjourned, the subsequent response from the respondent on 26th May 2025 has resulted in the required information being provided. This in turn means that it is not necessary to reconvene the hearing.

Name of employer

On the basis of the information supplied, the respondent is correctly named in the complaint form and as cited in this decision.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant who represented himself at adjudication has submitted a number of complaints alleging breaches of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 concerning receipt of his core terms of employment and further particulars of employment required by the legislation.

The complainant also states that he was not informed of the provisions of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 – S.I. 36 of 2012.

Further complaints submitted relate to breaches of the complainant’s employment rights in respect of rest periods and issues regarding the payment of a Sunday Premium as required by Section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent principal represented himself at adjudication and did not submit any written submissions in respect of the complaints. An opportunity to submit additional information post hearing did not result in any documentation being provided. Further requests for clarification resulted in additional information being submitted by the respondent on 26th May 2025.

In respect of the complaints relating to the alleged breaches of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 concerning the complainant’s contract of employment, the respondent outlined previous periods of employment of the complainant and other employees but was unable to confirm and did not provide any documentation in relation to the complaints submitted. In respect of the complaints relating to the regulations applicable to the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, the respondent did not provide any records or other information that would show he had met his obligations in respect of notifying the complainant of the regulations and in respect of record keeping in relation to breaks and rest periods. In respect of Sunday premium payments, the respondent stated that the complainant was paid €130.00 per day and an additional €20 on Sundays in respect of Sunday premium which the respondent contends is compliant with the legislation.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00065201-001 and CA-00065201-002 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

These complaints relate to alleged breaches of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 in relation to the complainant not receiving core terms within five days of the commencement of his employment and not receiving further written terms and conditions within one month of the commencement of employment as required by Section 3 of the Act.

While the employer spoke of other employees and the complainant’s other periods of employment and what had applied then, he was unable to establish that he had complied with the legislation by providing the complainant with his core terms and other particulars of employment as he was required to do. On that basis I find that the complaints are well founded.

CA-00065201-003 – Regulations 2012 – S.I. 36 of 2012

This is a complaint alleging that the complainant was not informed by the employer of the provisions of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012.

Section 9(1) and (9)(2) of the Regulations provides as follows:

9.(1) In the application of these Regulations, the provisions of the Council Regulation relating to daily and weekly rest shall apply to the driver of the vehicle or a person carried in the vehicle in order to be available for driving.

(2) An employer or self-employed driver, as the case may be, shall ensure that this Regulation is complied with

Sections 11 and 12 of the Regulations provide as follows:

11. 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.

	Obligations on employer
	12. An employer shall do each of the following in relation to each mobile worker employed by him or her:
	(a) maintain a record of the working pattern of the mobile worker in relation to driving, other work, breaks, daily and weekly rest periods and periods of availability;
	(b) request from the mobile worker details of any time worked by that worker for another employer and of any periods of work coming within the scope of Regulation 6(5) of the Council Regulation;
	(c) include time worked for another employer in the calculation of the mobile worker’s working time;
	(d) keep records which are adequate to show that these Regulations are being complied with;
	(e) retain records referred to in this Regulation for at least 2 years after the end of the period covered by those records;
	(f) provide, at the request of the mobile worker, a copy of the record of hours worked by that worker;
	(g) provide to an enforcement officer such records relating to the mobile worker or other mobile workers as the officer may require;
	(h) provide to the mobile worker or to an enforcement officer copies of such documentary evidence in the employer’s possession as may be requested by the worker or officer in relation to records provided to him or her in accordance with subparagraph (f) or (g).

Conclusions

The complainant alleges that the respondent failed in its obligations in respect of Sections, 9, 11 and 12 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 respondent was unable to establish that he had complied with the regulations and was given additional time to supply the appropriate records and any relevant tachograph information that would have assisted in demonstrating compliance. The respondent did not supply further information on this alleged breach and on that basis, I conclude that the complaint is well founded.

CA-00065201-004 – Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

The respondent stated that the complainant was paid €130.00 per day and an additional €20 in respect of a Sunday premium payment. The complainant worked for eight Sundays while employed by the respondent and says he did not receive payslips. There were no records supplied in respect of the total number of hours that were worked on each of the eight Sundays. As the respondent must retain records in respect of the complainant’s employment, and having failed to supply same, I find that the complaint is well founded.

CA-00065205-001 and CA-00065285-001 – Weekly rest periods.

These complaints relate to weekly rest periods while the complainant was undertaking bus tours of 8 days in duration. The complainant stated that his weekly rest must commence 6 days after his previous weekly rest ends. The complainant stated that driving excessively on two occasions was in contravention of his entitlement to the appropriate weekly rest periods as set out in the regulations pertaining to the employment.

In his supplemental submissions on the issue of weekly rest, the complainant stated that on two tours which commenced on 11th April 2024 and 2nd May 2024 he worked 8 days each time without getting his weekly rest after 6 days under S.I. 36 of 2012. On this issue I note that there were no records submitted by the respondent on the issue and on that basis, I find that the complaints are well founded.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

CA-00065201-001 and CA-00065201-002 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The complaints are well founded. The respondent is directed to pay the complainant one weeks’ gross pay (€750.00) in respect of each complaint. (Total €1,500.00)

CA-00065201-003 - Regulations 2012 – S.I. 36 of 2012.

The complaint is well founded. The respondent is directed to pay the complainant €1,500.00 in compensation.

CA-00065201-004 – Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

The complaint is well founded. The respondent is directed to pay the complainant €500.00 in respect of not having provided records that establish that the complainant was paid a Sunday premium for the eight Sundays he worked during his employment.

CA-00065205-001 and CA-00065285-001 – Weekly rest periods

The complaint is well founded. The respondent is directed to pay the complainant €200.00 in compensation.

Dated: 29-05-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey

Key Words:

Mobile Transport Activities, Working Time, terms of employment