Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Paul  McNevin

Capital Logistics Ltd

Representatives

Jeremy Doyle Solicitor

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-00078098-002

30/11/2025

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

In line with the coming into effect of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 on the 29th of July 2021, I can confirm that the witnesses herein were required to give their evidence on oath or affirmation. This was done in anticipation of the fact that there may have been a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to the complaint. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 30th of November 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date. The cognisable period is May 30th 2025 to November 29th 2025.

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth.

In advance of the hearing, I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. The evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s Representative.

The Complainant alleges that he was expected to be on the road well in excess of 60 hours a week in the course of his employment.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. The Complainant must establish facts which tend to disclose that there is a reasonable cause of action or that there appears to have been a contravention of a Statute or Statutes.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent had full legal representation at this hearing. The Respondent entity was also represented by the Managing Director who gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent provided me with some documentary evidence in advance of the hearing and in particular with the Complainant’s payslips. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case.

All evidence was heard following an Affirmation.

The Respondent rejects that there is any entitlement to redress.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by both sides at this hearing. The Complainant came to work for the Respondent logistics company in and around April 2025. In the end, the Complainant only worked with the Respondent for about six months as the Complainant left again in October of 2025.

The parties agree that the Complainant was to work a forty-five hour week across five days. The Complainant started work at 7.30 and in theory then his day should have ended at 5.30pm giving an hour for lunch) The Complainant was being paid minimum wage of €13.50 which meant that the Complainant’s basic salary each week was in the amount of €607.00. On top of this, the Complainant received an extra €20.00 per day subsistence fee.

The Complainant worked many long days and given the nature of the work and the long distances involved the Complainant very often worked overtime. The Complainant put in very long hours. He gave evidence of working well in excess of 60 hours a week on many occasions. The Complainant had the foresight to retain a written note of his travel times and these records were opened to me.

The Complainant submitted his overtime hours to the bookkeeper/accountant each week and the process was that the Complainant would be paid a week in hand on the next Thursday with any overtime getting paid on the Friday.

The Complainant began to notice that he was not getting paid for all the overtime which he was submitting and despite addressing this matter with the Managing Director on many occasions the Complainant was never fully reconciled for all the (excessive) hours he said he worked. The Complainant says he worked there for about 28 weeks, and he detailed each week wherein he says he was either paid the correct overtime, some overtime or absolutely no overtime. Some weeks the Complainant worked well over sixty hours (the maximum allowed) and the Complainant described regularly doing eighteen-hour long days. Over the course of 28 weeks, I am satisfied that the Complainant was not paid for about 122.5 hours of overtime. It seems therefore that not only was the Complainant being allowed to work hours that were excessive but was not even getting paid for some of these hours.

The Managing Director gave evidence on behalf of the company. I am not satisfied that the MD ever really appraised himself of what was happening in the course of the employment. He certainly agreed that the Complainant raised the issue of non-payment of overtime on many, many occasions. This amounts to a tacit acceptance of the claim to working long hours. The Complainant was never given a satisfactory decision as to why he was not getting paid for these extra hours. The Managing Director suggested it might have something to do with the trackers installed on the trucks but could not further elaborate.

It is not wholly surprising that the Complainant eventually opted to cut his losses and look for work elsewhere. In the aftermath of his departure the Complainant lodged a complaint concerning the excessive hours worked.

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-00078098-002 – The complaint herein is well founded and I direct that the Employer pay to the Employee €1,750.00 compensation as is just and equitable in all the circumstances.