Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Geoffrey  Power

Big O Taxis Limited (amended on consent)

Representatives

Teresa Power

 GHR Consulting

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-00075951-001

02/10/2025

The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation. It was his complaint that he did not receive his daily breaks. Mr Geffory Power Snr and Mr Keith Flatherty both gave evidence on affirmation as witnesses.

Ms Teresa Power represented the Complainant.

On behalf of the Respondent Karen Healy, Peadar Cusack, Frank Fahy and Gabriel Devane, all gave evidence on Affirmation. The Respondent was represented by Mr Ruairí Guckian.

Legal submissions were received by the Respondent and relied upon at the hearing. The Respondent denied the Complainant’s claim.

The name of the Respondent’s name was corrected on consent to Big O Taxis Limited.

Both parties availed of the opportunity to cross examine.  

It was the Complainant’s evidence that he had been employed as a taxi dispatcher with the Respondent for approximately twenty‑four years, from 2001 until his resignation in May 2025.

The Complainant explained that between 2010 and 2022 he worked a pattern of four nights on and four nights off. During this twelve‑year period, he said he did not receive any rest breaks. It was his evidence that he was required to remain at his workstation throughout each shift in order to take customer calls, and that no opportunities for rest were provided.

He further stated that he raised this issue repeatedly with management and also recorded complaints in the company’s complaints book. According to the Complainant, none of these complaints were ever acknowledged or addressed.

The Complainant gave evidence that when he transferred to daytime shifts in 2023, he began receiving his rest periods. He said he was unaware until after his resignation in May 2025 that the earlier lack of rest breaks could form the basis of a complaint to the WRC.

Mr Flaherty gave evidence that he also worked with the Respondent from 2022 to 2025 and did not receive his breaks.

Mr Power Senior gave evidence that he also worked with the Respondent and was also a shareholder. It was his evidence he raised the issue of his son’s breaks at the AGMs.

Preliminary Objection

In response to the Respondent’s objection, it was submitted that the Complainant was not aware of his statutory entitlements while he was employed and it only came to light following an inspection by the Workplace Relations Commission in May 2025.

Preliminary Objection

It was the Respondent’s position that where the Complainant’s claim relates to the period from 2010 to 2022 and therefore outside the consignable period provided for in Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. The Respondent relied upon the Labour Court determination in Cementation Skanska (Formerly Kvaerner Cementation) Limited v Carroll DWT0338.

Evidence

Ms Healy gave evidence of the contract of employment signed in 2013 which outlines the break times. It was her evidence that the Complainant was also provided with an employee handbook.

Mr Fahy gave evidence that the Complainant did raise the issue of breaks with him and left work at 6.30am instead of his scheduled time of 7am, adding that the Complainant was paid for 9 hours but worked 8 hours which cover the two 15-minute breaks and one 30-minute break. It was his evidence that there were two people in the office, and it was for themselves to decided when to take a break.

Mr Cusack gave evidence that he had his own knowledge that there was no issue of a complaint. Prior to the Covid19 Pandemic there two to three employees in the office and during the Pandemic years this was reduced to one for social distancing reasons, but the call volume was significantly reduced.  

Mr Devane gave evidence that he reviewed records on a Monday and could see when the Complainant took a break during his time.

In closing, it was submitted the Respondent’s role was not to monitor the Complainant’s breaks, that even when ate at his desk this does not establish that he did not get his breaks, and he never raised it with his manager within the week as provided for in his contract of employment.

Preliminary Objection

The Complainant was asked about the delay in referring his complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission where there were complaints relating 2010-2022. It was his submission that he was not aware of his statutory rights however then gave evidence of raising this issue with the Respondent including detailing it the Respondent’s complaint book in addition to accepted his had a contract of employment since 2013.  This is further supported by his father’s evidence that he raised the break issue at several AGM’s of the Respondent.

The jurisdiction for referral of complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission is set out in Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015:-

“(6) 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.”

Where reasonable cause can be demonstrated this period can be extended up to a maximum of 12 months. It is not accepted the Complainant was not aware of his statutory rights until October 2025. Furthermore, given that the period of which he complains of, 2010-2022, even if there was an extension of time, this period would not fall within the extend consignable period.

In the circumstance where this related to a period from 2010 to 2022 I find the complaint falls outside of the jurisdiction set out in Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 I decline jurisdiction.

For the reason outlined above, I find the complaint is not well founded.