ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057877
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mariusz Gronkiewicz | Ryan's Investments trading as Hertz Rent A Car |
Representatives |
| Ms Dearbhala Casey BL instructed by Mr Derek Murphy Solicitor |
Complaint(s):
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-00069569-001 | 25/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
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 began working for the Respondent in 2016. He was put on long term sick leave in April 2019. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under oath with the assistance of an interpreter. The person supporting him at the hearing, Ms Milosz, made submissions on his behalf. In early 2025 the Complainant discovered that he was no longer on revenue as an employee of the Respondent and had his employment had been listed as ended as of January 2023. He submitted this complaint noting also he had not received any annual leave or public holidays. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s representative Ms Casey made oral and written submissions on their behalf. They submit that the Complainant is not encompassed by the legislation he has referred a complaint under. The Respondent is clear that the Complainant remains an employee and that he was stopped on revenue due to an error. He has not received payroll payments from the Company for a number of years but continues to be employed by them on sick leave. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Respondent has submitted that the Complainant was employed at their Dublin Airport site and was involved in cleaning and delivering the cars to clients on site. He was a clock in and clock out worker based on that site. The Worker does not dispute this but his evidence was that he would deliver cars to other sites on occasion. On review of the evidence available to me I do not conclude that the Complainant was “travelling staff” and worked mainly from a single location and cleaned and moved cars around that location or to nearby locations. In the circumstances he does not fall under the definition of a mobile worker as encompassed by S.I. No. 36/2012 and Directive 2002/15/EC. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 9th March 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|