ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00061253
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Paul Wrynn | Gaelic Plant Hire Ltd |
Representatives | Justin Travers | Alisia Mulvany Solicitor |
Complaint:
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-00074791-001 | 26/08/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
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 complaint was submitted under S.I.36/2012 – European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons performing mobile road transport activities) Regulations 2012.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The representative of the Complainant submitted a written submission prior to the hearing. The narrative was concerned with the Complainant’s assertion that he was constructively dismissed from his employment on 30 June 2025. The alleged breach of contract, reduction in salary and withdrawal of company vehicle resulted in his resignation.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s representative submitted a written submission prior to the hearing. In the submission, working time records were included and the Respondent argues there was no breach of S.I.36/2012.
Findings and Conclusions:
The narrative contained in the Complainant’s complaint form concerns the circumstances of the Complainant’s resignation, namely the provision and withdrawal of vehicle and grievances around salary reduction which led to his resignation. S.I. 36/2012 under which the complaint was submitted is the relevant statute which governs working time and working time records. At the hearing the Complainant’s representative confirmed there was no complaint about working time or working time records. He was unsure under what Act the complaint should have been submitted. I find the complaint is misconceived under the statute which it was submitted. I find the complaint to be not well founded.
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Based on the findings and reasons above, I have decided that the complaint is not well founded.
Dated: 12th of March 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
S.I.36/2012 not well founded. |
