Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mihai  Anghel

Smith Vehicles Solution

Representatives

Self-represented

Warren Parkes Warren Parkes Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00075957-001

02/10/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00075966-001

02/10/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00075966-002

02/10/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant undertook to give his evidence under oath, three witnesses undertook to give any evidence required under affirmation, however in the end, none of the respondent witnesses were called upon to give evidence.

At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”.

The complainant noted two identical complaints in his initial applications under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act (CA-00075957-001 & CA-00075966-001) but indicated in the narrative that he had additional complaints under other legislation.  As the respondent was on notice of this narrative from the outset and given that the complaint form is non-statutory in nature, the Organisation of Working Time Act complaint detailed in the application form was heard under an additional complaint number – CA-00075966-002.

The complainant indicated that in respect of a possible Payment of Wages Act complaint there was no shortfall of wages, rather his complaint related to the manner in which his wages were noted with the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare.

The complainant also indicated that he wished to bring a complaint regarding the records kept by the respondent under Section 25 of the Organisation of Working Time Act.

CA-00075957-001 Terms of Employment (Information) Act

The complainant submitted that the respondent breached the Act in that it did not provide him with a written statement of the terms of his employment as outlined in the Act.

CA-00075966-001 Terms of Employment (Information) Act

Duplicate complaint – not proceeded with.

CA-00075966-002 Organisation of Working Time Act

The complainant submitted that the respondent breached Section 25 of the Act in that it did not keep records of his hours of work in breach of its statutory duty.  He stated that in the absence of a digital system to note his hours, the employer was required under Irish Employment Law to get him to sign a note of his hours and was also required to provide him with a copy of that notification.

The complainant submitted that he was required to work long hours in excess of those laid down in the Act.  He stated that he would be collected in the morning, that they would drive to the port in Dublin and then perhaps fix the lighting on newly delivered trucks before driving them on to the client locations around the country. He stated that the burden rests with the employer to prove that he wasn’t working longer hours.  He stated that the records submitted by the respondent were written up after the fact.

The complainant also noted that he wanted it to be noted that his wages were different to the amounts advised to him.  He stated that he needed this for a High Court case that he was pursuing.  He stated that he asked the Revenue Commissioners for the information, but they were taking too long.

The complainant confirmed that there were not any monies outstanding in relation to a possible payment of wages complaint and that he had an issue with the manner in which he was paid.

CA-00075957-001 Terms of Employment (Information) Act

The respondent accepted that it breached the Act in that it did not provide the complainant with a written statement of the terms of his employment as outlined in the Act.  It noted that it had recently provided all staff with a statement of terms of employment that complied with the provisions of the Act.

CA-00075966-001 Terms of Employment (Information) Act

Duplicate complaint – not proceeded with.

CA-00075966-002 Organisation of Working Time Act

The respondent submitted that it had submitted GPS records of the van that accompanied the complainant on the journeys that he drove.  This van picked the complainant and some colleagues up from the headquarters of the business and returned them to that location later in the afternoon/evening.  It was submitted that although the timesheets were written up by the payroll section, the timesheets were based upon the Digital GPS system that operated in the accompanying vehicle.

CA-00075957-001 Terms of Employment (Information) Act

The respondent accepted that it breached the Act in that it did not provide the complainant with a written statement of the terms of his employment as outlined in the Act.

Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the complaint is well founded.  Arising from this I am satisfied that an award of compensation of €1860 is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances of this complaint.

CA-00075966-001 Terms of Employment (Information) Act

This matter was a duplicate complaint to the previous complaint and was not proceeded with.

CA-00075966-002 Organisation of Working Time Act

The complainant submitted that he was made to work long hours in breach of the Act. Section 15(1) of the Act states as follows:

15.—(1) An employer shall not permit an employee to work, in each period of 7 days, more than an average of 48 hours, that is to say an average of 48 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a “reference period ”) that does not exceed—

(a) 4 months, or

(b) 6 months—

(i) in the case of an employee employed in an activity referred to in paragraph 2, point 2.1. of Article 17 of the Council Directive, or

(ii) where due to any matter referred to in section 5, it would not be practicable (if a reference period not exceeding 4 months were to apply in relation to the employee) for the employer to comply with this subsection,

or

(c) such length of time as, in the case of an employee employed in an activity mentioned in subsection (5), is specified in a collective agreement referred to in that subsection.

The complainant indicated that he was occasionally required to drive down to Cork but did not provide specific dates and times to support his contention.  The respondent provided digital GPS records governing the time and distance travelled by the support vehicle which picked up, and dropped off, the complainant at his place of work.  It was submitted that this data was used by the payroll staff to compile work sheets.

Having considered the arguments put forward by both parties, I am not satisfied that complainant has established that his working hours averaged out above the 48-hour limit set down in the Act.  Accordingly, I find that he has not established a well-founded complaint.

The complainant also indicated that he wished to bring a complaint regarding the records kept by the respondent under Section 25 of the Organisation of Working Time Act.  Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act states as follows:

(1) In this section “relevant provision” means—

(a) any of the following sections, namely, section 6(2), sections 11 to 23, or section 26,

(aa) any of the following regulations of the Activities of Doctors in Training Regulations, namely, regulations 5 to 10,

(b) the provision referred to in section 6(1) of regulations, a collective agreement, registered employment agreement or employment regulation order referred to in that section, or

(c) paragraph 9 of the Fifth Schedule.

(2) …

(3) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of a relevant provision shall do one or more of the following, namely:

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision,

(c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment.

Having regard to the foregoing and specifically Section 27(1)(a) of the Act and Section 27(3), I find that an Adjudication Officer is precluded from making a decision on a complaint regarding Section 25 of the Acts.

CA-00075957-001 Terms of Employment (Information) Act

Having regard to all the evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is well founded.  I order the employer to pay the complaint the sum of €1,860 which I consider to be just and fair in all the circumstances of this complaint.

CA-00075966-001 Terms of Employment (Information) Act

Duplicate complaint – not proceeded with.

CA-00075966-001 Terms of Employment (Information) Act

This matter was a duplicate complaint to the previous complaint and was not proceeded with.

CA-00075966-002 Organisation of Working Time Act

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. 

Terms of Employment Information Act – breach accepted – award of compensation – Organisation of Working Time Act – complainant not well founded – additional complaint outside the remit of Adjudication