ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062888
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sliman Abaroudi | Apple Distribution International Ltd. [As Amended] |
Representatives | Self-represented | David Pearson, Solicitor of JW O’Donovan Solicitors LLP |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint 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-00076715-001 | 23/10/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Lefre de Burgh
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant filed a complaint 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
The Respondent denies the Complainant’s claims.
A hearing was convened at WRC Cork on 10th March 2026
No appearance was entered by or on behalf of the Complainant.
The Respondent, along with its Solicitor, attended at the hearing.
The Adjudication Officer allowed a fifteen (15) minute grace period before proceeding with the hearing.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant filed a complaint 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 on 23.05.2025.
However, the narrative paragraph in the complaint form details an entirely different complaint. It sets out a dispute with the Respondent employer pertaining to the contractual right to remote working. It outlines the details of that dispute and the impact on the Complainant and on his family life, of having to be on site, in Cork. That dispute was ultimately resolved between the parties with the Complainant being found to be entitled to work fully remotely. The complaint form submitted states: ‘‘After finally reaching an agreement on the terms of my contract, this was confirmed by Apple. As of 02.05.2025 Apple recognised this contract and stated: ‘Following today’s meeting, you can now resume working from home on a permanent basis.’’ The Complainant submits that he sought a ‘€50,000 settlement, reinstatement of the leave use and suppression of the incidents’, but Apple refused considering the matter closed and offering no alternatives.
The Complainant then filed this complaint herein with the WRC, detailing in the narrative paragraph on the complaint form, that he was seeking compensation pertaining to the period of dispute, in the following terms:- 1. ‘Reinstatement of Time Away Used for Onsite Days: Reinstatement of the leaves used to cover “absences” for onsite days.’ He submits that these days were taken in order to limit loss of income and to mitigate the incident count. 2. Loss of income: Payment for short-term sick leave which was unpaid. He submits that this amounted to approximately €4000 euros net pay.
A hearing was scheduled for 10th March 2026. The parties were notified of the hearing date by letter dated 16th January 2026.
On 20th February 2026, the Complainant made an application to alter the hearing arrangements to a remote hearing, citing the financial cost of travelling from Meath to Cork and indicating that if it were not possible to change the hearing to a remote one, he would attend in person. The Respondent objected, when its comments were sought, in line with the WRC’s Objections to Hearing Arrangements Policy. The WRC determined that the hearing would proceed as scheduled.
The Complainant then sought to change the start time of the hearing to a later time as he would be travelling to attend, or to change the location of the hearing from Cork to Dublin. He was informed that neither was possible.
The Complainant filed his submission on 4th March 2026.
The Respondent filed its submissions on 5th March 2026.
The Complainant then made a postponement application also on 5th March 2026 citing, for the first time, that he was observing Ramadan as the reason he could not attend in person at the scheduled hearing. The Respondent objected to the postponement application, when its comments were sought in line with Process 2 of the WRC’s Policy on Postponements, and highlighting that this application had only been made subsequent to the filing of its submissions.
The Complainant then did not attend at the hearing despite not having received an outcome to his postponement application, in advance of the scheduled hearing.
The hearing was convened, as scheduled, in person, in the WRC’s Cork office.
No appearance was entered by or on behalf of the Complainant.
The Adjudication Officer allowed a fifteen (15) minute grace period prior to commencing the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent denies the Complainant’s claims.
The Respondent, along with its Solicitor, Mr. David Pearson of JW O’Donovan Solicitors LLP attended at the hearing, convened on 10th March 2026.
As per the Respondent’s written submissions, it sets out the Respondent’s consent to the name of the Respondent being amended in these proceedings to its correct legal name which it submits is ‘Apple Distribution International Limited.’
It furthers submits that the Complainant’s complaint is ‘misconceived’, stating: ‘The European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time for Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities Regulations 2012 – SI36/2012 does not apply to him or his role within the Respondent company. The Regulations apply to- (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. The Complainant is neither a mobile worker nor a driver with the Respondent company.’
It respectfully submits that the Adjudication Officer has no jurisdiction to make any order under the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time for Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities Regulations 2012 and requests that the complaint be determined to be not well founded and dismissed. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the hearing.
Having carefully considered the postponement application made, and the Respondent’s response, as against the framework set out in Process 2 of the WRC’s Policy on Postponements, I am satisfied that no ‘substantial reasons and exceptional circumstances’ occurred which would have necessitated the granting of a postponement, in this case. |
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.
I find for the Respondent. I find that this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 24-08-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Lefre de Burgh
Key Words:
No appearance |