Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Grzegorz  Piatek

Petmania Pet Shop Ltd

Representatives

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-00075176-001

05/09/2025

The complainant submits that he was unhappy with matters at work including changes in his nett pay.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE:

The complainant did not object to the respondent’s request to amend the name to include ‘Ltd’.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE:

The complainant commenced employment on 13/05/2024 and his employment ended on 27/08/2025 and his gross was €45,000.  The complainant submitted that the respondent does not keep accurate records and submitted on his complaint form that he was unhappy with his employment and had to resign and received an unprofessional and deeply disrespectful phone call from the respondent.  Despite achievements delivered he was left feeling miserable in his role, with no recognition for the hard work or results consistently produced and his development of staff was undermined and every visit and interaction with the manager left him feeling demotivated. Regardless of what standards or customer service levels are achieved, it was never acknowledged as sufficient. Positive feedback was entirely absent, and rather than receiving support when problems arose, he was consistently left to solve them alone. The lack of support and recognition has been systemic and damaging to him and to the team as a whole. He was grateful for the colleagues he worked alongside, but his experience of management was overwhelmingly negative and unsustainable.

COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE:

The complainant confirmed that he does not perform duties under the Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities.  He sent an email highlighting workplace issues and confirmed that there were no grounds under employment equality and that he did not receive monies owed.  His employment started off fine and things got bad after he phoned in sick and he was asked why the shop was not open and he was told it was his responsibility to ensure the shop was open and that if he was unwell, he was not able to open the shop.  The responsibilities he had given to staff to be key holders had been taken off some people and he hired a guy and trained him and then access was taken from him so the complainant did not know how to deal with this.  There was a meeting and he felt broken after it.  The complainant noticed that he had €150 less in his wages and he was told it was due to revenue tax changes but he disputed that as revenue never contacted him.

There was no cross examination of the complainant.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE:

The respondent submitted that ‘Ltd’ should be added to the name of the respondent and the name amended.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE:

The respondent is part of the O’Keeffes Group and operate a chain of Pet Stores nationwide. The complainant commenced his employment as a Store Manager with Petmania on the 13/05/2024 and embarked on a period of training in the Carlow store prior to moving to Galway. He worked up until his resignation on 28/08/2025.  It was submitted that the complainant’s complaint is confusing and difficult to prepare a defence submission for. He was a Retail Manager and was not employed to carry out any road related duties and they are therefore unsure of what terms of employment and records they are accused of not keeping 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. When he resigned, he raised allegations against another employee that he had not raised prior to this.  There is an open-door system and a range of procedures from grievance, dignity at work, protected disclosures to allow any colleague raise an issue  and he did not utilise this.

EVIDENCE OF MS NORTON

The evidence of Ms Norton was that the complainant was not discriminated against and that revenue advised to amend tax for the complainant and he was provided a screen shot of this message and the gross remained the same but the nett was reduced accordingly because of an instruction from revenue.

Under cross examination she advised she did not know why revenue did not contact the complainant and she has no control over what revenue do and that the difference in previous nett arose because of the revenue direction and she confirmed that they did not respond to his letter of resignation.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE:

The respondent requested for an amendment to the name of the respondent and the complainant did not object and taking note that no party was prejudiced by same I have amended the name of the respondent and included ‘Ltd’.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE:

The complainant submitted a complaint under the 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 and confirmed in his evidence that he is not a mobile worker and that his complaint is that the respondent made deductions and did not inform him.  The respondent submits that the gross pay of the complainant did not change, that any deductions to his nett were arising from instruction from revenue and that they have no control over this.

The regulation sets out the scope that these regulations apply to include:

3 (a) mobile workers who are employed by or who do work for one or more undertakings established in a Member State, and

(b) self-employed drivers,

participating in road transport activities to which either the Council Regulation or the AETR applies

It was difficult at time to understand what the complaints were as the complainant appeared unhappy with various aspects of his employment including how he was treated, no follow up after his resignation and the difference in nett from previous payments.  It was confirmed in evidence by the complainant and the respondent that the regulation does not apply to the worker and while it was disputed by the complainant, it would appear that the difference in his nett arose because of revenue deductions.  I find that in all the circumstances that the complaint is not well founded and dismiss the complaint.

I find that in all the circumstances that the complaint is not well founded and dismiss the complaint.

Mobile worker, revenue, nett, gross