Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ion Girbu

Jayden & Preston Limited t/a Parcel-King

Representatives

Marius Marosan

N/A

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-00058883-001

18/09/2023

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-00058883-002

18/09/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00058883-003

18/09/2023

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-00058883-004

18/09/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00058883-005

18/09/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00058883-006

18/09/2023

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-00058883-007

18/09/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00060041-001

15/11/2023

The Complainant worked as a delivery van driver for the Respondent from 7 June 2022 until 23 June 2023. The Complainant alleges a number of violations regarding, inter alia, his contract of employment, his breaks, his hours and his pay. The Complainant invokes the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994; the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012; the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997; and the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The Complainant provided written and oral submissions.

Role:

The Complainant outlined that from 7 June 2022 until 23 June 2023, he worked as a delivery van driver for the Respondent, which was a subcontractor. During the first six months, he delivered parcels in or around Co. Meath. During the second six months, he delivered parcels in or around Co. Kildare.

Hours, Pay and Breaks:

The Complainant outlined that he worked from 6am until 4pm or 5pm, five days per week. He stated that he also frequently worked Saturdays. He said that in the run-up to Christmas, a busier time of year, he worked until 7pm for 6 days per week, for approximately one month. He stated that he collected the parcels from a depot in the morning which he had to deliver. He said that he worked for as long as it took to deliver the parcels. He stated that the employer knew when he delivered a parcel, as he had a device which he used to scan packages upon delivery. He stated that he did not receive any timesheets.

The Complainant stated that he was paid a flat rate of €100 per day, which also applied to Saturdays. He stated that he received no breaks. He also stated that if he took a break, he had to make up for extra time. He said that he sometimes stopped at a petrol station, where he used the bathroom or bought a drink. He said that he had his lunch while he drove and he also said that he did not eat much.

Contract of Employment / Core Terms:

The Complainant outlined that he took photos of his contract of employment when he was given it by the Respondent to sign and date. He submitted the same photos by way of evidence. In his oral evidence, he confirmed that the date of the photos was 27 June 2022. He stated that he was not provided with a copy of his contract of employment and that no one explained it to him. The Complainant stated that he also received a link by email, to sign his contract of employment. He said that after he had signed the contract of employment, he could no longer review it. He said that he was not provided with any document concerning his employment withing five days of starting his employment. The Complainant stated that he received no information concerning legislation that applies to drivers.

Annual Leave:

The Complainant stated that he received ten paid holidays in total during his employment – five days in March 2023 and five days in June 2023. He stated that he also took five days of unpaid holiday. He stated that at the end of his employment, he did not receive payment for his accrued annual leave.

Conclusion of Employment:

The Complainant stated that prior to leaving his employment he asked about accrued holiday pay but he was ignored. The Complainant stated that his last payslip was dated 9 June 2023. He said that he did not receive his final two weeks of pay in total, amounting to €1,000. He said that he also did not receive his accrued holiday pay. He said that he spoke to his supervisor who said that he could not help him. He said that he called the Respondent but received no response. He also said that he emailed the Respondent.

The Complainant stated that his colleagues had similar issues regarding non-payment of wages and that they left before he did. He stated that it is his understanding that the Respondent no longer has any vans or assts and that his colleagues no longer work there.

The Complainant said that he emailed the Respondent on 18 September 2023, seeking his average hourly rate of pay but received no response.

Finally, the Complainant stated that he did not submit a WRC complaint sooner as he did not know that he could do so until he received advice from his representative.

There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

In a letter from the WRC dated 3 July 2025, the Respondent was informed of the details of the Hearing to take place on 16 September 2025. The same letter also set out the procedure regarding postponement requests. This letter was sent to the Respondent both by email and by post.

The Respondent was allowed a 15-minute grace period in which to attend the Hearing but he did not do so.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the Hearing and did not attend.

Preliminary Issue – Cognisable Period:

The Law:

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (the “WRA”) provides:

“Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.”

This six-month time period can be extended, where “reasonable cause” is demonstrated. To this end, section 41(8) of the WRA provides:

“An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.”

Caselaw:

The established test for “reasonable cause” for the purpose of granting an extension of time is that set out by the Labour Court in Cementation Skanska v. Carroll, DWT0338 as follows:

“It is the Court’s view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time.”

The onus is therefore on the Complainant to identify the reason for the delay and to establish that the reason relied upon amounts to “reasonable cause” for that delay.

Findings and Conclusion:

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 7 June 2022 until 23 June 2023. He filed his two WRC Complaint Forms on 18 September 2023 and on 15 November 2023. The second WRC Complaint Form concerned his minimum wage complaint.

The Complainant stated that he did not file his WRC complaints sooner as he did not know that he could do so until he received advice. In the circumstances, I find that the Complainant has not demonstrated “reasonable cause” to extend the six-month time period. Therefore, I find that the cognisable periods for the complaints before the WRC run from 19 March 2023 until 18 September and from 16 May 2023 until 15 November 2023, where relevant.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – CA-00058883-001 – Core Terms:

The Law:

The Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (the “TE(I)A”) sets out the basic terms of employment which an employer must provide to an employee in written form. Section 3(1A) of the TE(I)A obligates an employer to provide employees with certain essential information, or core terms, in writing within five days of commencing employment.

Findings and Conclusion:

The Complainant’s evidence was uncontested. The Complainant outlined that he did not receive his core terms of employment in writing, within five days of commencing employment. In the circumstances, I find the complaint well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant two weeks’ remuneration, amounting to approximately €1,000, by way of compensation.

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-00058883-002 – Regulation 11 – Notification of Working Hours:

The Law:

Pursuant to Regulation 11 of European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 (the “EC Road Transport Regulations”):

“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.”

Findings and Conclusion:

It was the Complainant’s uncontested evidence that (aside from the contract of employment provided on 27 June 2022), he received no other documentation concerning his employment. I have also considered the contract of employment which makes no mention of the EC Road Transport Regulations. In the circumstances, I find the complaint well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant two weeks’ remuneration, amounting to approximately €1,000, by way of compensation.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – CA-00058883-003 – Statement in Writing:

The Law:

Pursuant to section 3(1) of the TE(I)A, an employer shall “give or cause to be given”, to the employee, a statement in writing containing specific particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment. This statement in writing must be given to the employee within one month of the commencement of employment.

Findings and Conclusion:

The Complainant’s evidence was uncontested. The Complainant commenced his employment on 7 June 2022. He outlined that he took photos of his contract of employment when the Respondent provided it to him, to sign and date. The Complainant submitted the same photos by way of evidence. In the course of his oral evidence, the Complainant confirmed that the date of the photos was 27 June 2022. In the circumstances, I find that the Complainant was given a statement in writing containing the terms of his employment within one month of the commencement of his employment. In the circumstances, I find this complaint not well founded.

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-00058883-004 – Regulation 5(1) – Maximum Permitted Number of Hours of Work:

The Law:

Pursuant to Regulation 5(1) of the EC Road Transport Regulations

“Subject to any derogation under Article 8 of the Directive, a person performing mobile road transport activities shall not exceed—

(a) a working time of more than 60 hours in a week,

(b) an average weekly working time of 48 hours in any reference period.”

Regulation 5(2) provides a formula for calculating a “reference period”. Regulation 4(1) defines “reference period” and provides dates for the same over a 17 consecutive week period, between: 1 January to 1 May; 1 May to 1 September; and 1 September to 1 January.

In Malcolm Dick v. Limerick Express Couriers Limited, RTD211, the Labour Court noted that pursuant to Regulation 12 of the EC Road Transport Regulations, the onus is on the employer to keep records regarding, “driving, other work, breaks, daily and weekly rest periods and periods of availability”.

Findings and Conclusion:

The Complainant’s uncontested evidence was that he worked approximately 55 hours per week, and that he worked longer hours during certain times of the year such as Christmas. As outlined above, the cognisable period for this complaint runs from 19 March 2023 until 18 September 2023. The Complainant left his employment on 23 June 2023. Therefore, when considering the cognisable period and the Complainant’s end of employment, I can only consider the period from 19 March 2023 to 23 June 2023. Furthermore, according to the EC Road Transport Regulations, the “reference period” runs either from 19 March 2023 until 1 May 2023 or from 1 May until 23 June 2023. Neither of these two periods meet the 17 consecutive week reference period requirements under Regulation 4(1). In the circumstances, I find this complaint not well founded.  

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – CA-00058883-005 – Holiday / Annual Leave Entitlement:

The Law:

Pursuant to section 19(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 (the “OWTA”), an employee is entitled to the following paid annual leave:

“(a) 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment),

(b) one-third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours, or

(c) 8 per cent. of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks).

Provided that if more than one of the preceding paragraphs is applicable in the case concerned and the period of annual leave of the employee, determined in accordance with each of those paragraphs, is not identical, the annual leave to which the employee shall be entitled shall be equal to whichever of those periods is the greater.”

Section 23 of the OWTA provides for compensation on cesser of employment as follows:

“23. Compensation on cesser of employment

(1)(a) Where—

(i) an employee ceases to be employed, and

(ii) the whole or any portion of the annual leave in respect of the relevant period remains to be granted to the employee,

the employee shall, as compensation for the loss of that annual leave, be paid by his or her employer an amount equal to the pay, calculated at the normal weekly rate or, as the case may be, at a rate proportionate to the normal weekly rate, that he or she would have received had he or she been granted that annual leave.”

In Waterford City Council v. Mr. Stephen O’Donoghue, DWT0963, the Labour Court held:

“The only leave year which is cognisable for the purpose of determining if an employee received his or her statutory entitlement is that prescribed by the Act itself, that is to say a year starting on 1st April and ending on 31st March the following year. While different arrangements may be put in place for administrative purposes, in determining if a contravention of the Act occurred that Court can only have regard to the leave allocated to an employee in the statutory period.”

Findings and Conclusion:

The Complainant’s evidence was uncontested. The Complainant stated that he received only ten paid holidays in 2023 – five days in March 2023 and five days in June 2023.

The Complainant submitted his WRC Complaint Form on 18 September 2023. Section 2 of the OWTA provides that the “leave year” is any year beginning on 1 April. However, in this matter, section 23(1)(b)(ii) of the OWTA applies and so the leave accrued by the Complainant during the previous leave year can also be taken into account. Therefore, in this matter, the relevant period runs from 7 June 2022 until 31 March 2023; and from 1 April 2023 until 23 June 2023, when the Complainant’s employment ended. During this time, on a pro rata basis, the Complainant accrued approximately twenty days of annual leave. The Complainant stated that he took ten days of annual leave during this time. Therefore, on cessation of employment, the Complainant was owed ten days of annual leave.

In the circumstances, I find the complaint well founded. I note that the right to annual leave is derived from the Working Time Directive. In Von Colson & Kamann v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891, the Court of Justice of the European Union made it clear that where such a right is infringed, the redress provided should not only compensate for economic loss sustained but must provide a real deterrent against future infractions.

Pursuant to section 27(3) of the OWTA, I direct the following:

·            The Respondent to pay the Complainant €1,000 gross (approximately ten days’ or two weeks’ remuneration) for the financial loss which the Complainant suffered; and

·            The Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €1,000 (approximately two weeks’ pay) for the breach of the Complainant’s statutory rights.

This award is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 – CA-00058883-006 – Pay:

The Law:

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 as amended (the “PWA”) provides:

“5. (1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.”

And

“5(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee, then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.”

Section 5(6) of the PWA was considered in Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55. In that case, MacGrath J. re-affirmed the proposition that the first matter to be determined is what wages are properly payable under the contract of employment. If it is established that a deduction within the meaning of the PWA has been made from the wages properly payable, it is then necessary to consider whether that deduction was lawful.

Findings and Conclusion:

It was the Complainant’s uncontested evidence that he did not receive two weeks of pay in total at the end of his employment. He said that he called the Respondent but received no response. He also said that he emailed the Respondent. In the circumstances, I find the complaint well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €1,000. This is a gross amount and is subject to taxation and any statutory deductions.

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-00058883-007 – Regulation 8 – Breaks:

The Law:

Pursuant to Regulation 8 of the EC Road Transport Regulations:

“Breaks from work

8. (1) No person performing mobile road transport activities shall work for more than 6 consecutive hours without a break.

(2) Where the working time of a person performing mobile road transport activities exceeds 6 consecutive hours but does not exceed 9 consecutive hours, the person shall be entitled to a break lasting at least 30 minutes interrupting that time.

(3) Where the working time of a person performing mobile road transport activities exceeds 9 consecutive hours, the person shall be entitled to a break lasting at least 45 minutes interrupting that time.

(4) Each break may be made up of separate periods of not less than 15 minutes each.

(5) An employer shall ensure that this Regulation is complied with in the case of each mobile worker employed by him or her.”

In Malcolm Dick v. Limerick Express Couriers Limited, RTD211, the Labour Court noted that pursuant to Regulation 12 of the EC Road Transport Regulations, the onus is on the employer to keep records regarding, “driving, other work, breaks, daily and weekly rest periods and periods of availability”.

Findings and Conclusion:

It was the Complainant’s uncontested evidence that he received no breaks. He also stated that if he took a break, he had to make up for extra time. He said that he had his lunch while he drove and he also said that he did not eat much. He said that he did not have any timesheets.

The Complainant emailed the Respondent on 18 September 2023, requesting, inter alia, “copies of his working pattern”. The Complainant provided a copy of the email by way of evidence. The Complainant submitted that he received no response. At the Hearing on 5 June 2024, the Respondent Representative (no longer on record) indicated that he would attempt to provide tachograph records. No such records were put before the WRC.

In the circumstances, I find the complaint well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant two weeks’ remuneration, amounting to approximately €1,000, by way of compensation.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 – CA-00060041-001 – Minimum Wage:

The Law:

The National Minimum Wage Act 2000 (the “NMWA”) modifies all existing contracts of employment, collective agreements or legislative provisions insofar as they provide for less favourable remuneration than is provided for by the NMWA. The 2023 minimum hourly wage for those aged 20 and above was €11.30.

Award:

Section 26 of the NMWA provides:

“(1) A decision of an adjudication officer in relation to a dispute in respect of the entitlements of an employee under this Act referred to the adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 may contain—

(a) a direction to the employer to pay to the employee—

(i) an award of arrears, being the difference between any amount paid or allowed by the employer to the employee for pay and the minimum amount the employee was entitled to be paid or allowed in accordance with this Act in respect of the period to which the dispute relates, and

(ii) reasonable expenses of the employee in connection with the dispute,

(b) a requirement that the employer rectify, within a specified time (not being later than 42 days after the date the decision is communicated to the employer) or in a specified manner, any matter, including the payment of any amount, in respect of which the employer is in contravention of this Act, or

(c) both such direction and such requirement, as the adjudication officer considers appropriate.”

Findings and Conclusion:

The Complainant’s uncontested evidence was that he worked approximately 11 hours per day and that he earned €100 per day. On 18 September 2023, the Complainant emailed the Respondent, requesting a statement of his average hourly rate of pay. The Complainant provided a copy of the email. The Complainant submitted that he received no response. The Complainant filed his WRC complaint regarding this matter on 15 November 2023.

As set out above, the cognisable period for this specific complaint runs for approximately six weeks, from 16 May 2023 until 23 June 2023 (the Complainant’s last day of employment). While the Complainant referred to working longer hours during the Christmas period, I note that this does not fall within the cognisable period.

It was the Complainant’s uncontested evidence that he worked approximately 11 hours per day, over five days, and that he earned a flat rate of €100 per day. This amounts to an hourly rate of €9.09. The minimum hourly wage in 2023 was €11.30 per hour. There was therefore an hourly wage shortfall of €2.21. In the circumstances, I find the complaint well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant an award of arrears of €729.30 (6*55*€2.21). This is a gross amount and is subject to taxation and any statutory deductions.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – CA-00058883-001 – Core Terms:

For the reasons set out above, I find the complaint well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant two weeks’ remuneration, amounting to approximately €1,000, by way of compensation.

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-00058883-002 – Regulation 11 – Notification of Working Hours:

For the reasons set out above, I find the complaint well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant two weeks’ remuneration, amounting to approximately €1,000, by way of compensation.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – CA-00058883-003 – Statement in Writing:

For the reasons set out above, I find this complaint not well founded.

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-00058883-004 – Regulation 5(1) – Maximum Permitted Number of Hours of Work:

For the reasons set out above, I find this complaint not well founded.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – CA-00058883-005 – Holiday / Annual Leave Entitlement:

For the reasons set out above, I find this complaint well founded and I direct the following:

·            The Respondent to pay the Complainant €1,000 gross (approximately ten days’ or two weeks’ pay) for the financial loss which the Complainant suffered; and

·            The Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €1,000 (approximately two weeks’ pay) for the breach of the Complainant’s statutory rights.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 – CA-00058883-006 – Pay:

For the reasons set out above I find the complaint well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €1,000. This is a gross amount and is subject to taxation and any statutory deductions.

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-00058883-007 – Breaks:

For the reasons set out above I find the complaint well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant two weeks’ remuneration, amounting to approximately €1,000, by way of compensation.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 – CA-00060041-001 – Minimum Wage:

For the reasons set out above, I find the complaint well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant an award of arrears of €729.30. This is a gross amount and is subject to taxation and any statutory deductions.

Total Amount Awarded: €6,729.30 (note – taxation and statutory deductions apply where relevant).

Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994; European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012; Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997; Payment of Wages Act, 1991; Cognisable Period.