ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060108
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Klebson Guilherme Ferreira Dos Santos | Brindley Healthcare Services Ltd t/a Manor Homecare |
Representatives | Self - Represented | Peter Gilfedder IBEC |
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-00072748-001 | 24/06/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/01/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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 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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Oath / Affirmation was administered to all witnesses present. The legal peril of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
No issue regarding confidentiality arose.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Opening Legal issue – Applicability of Complaint to Complainant’s actual employment.
Respondent Argument
The complaint is brought 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.
It was common cause that the Employment was in Healthcare setting with no connection to any form of Mobile Transport. As such the complaint has to be struck out as completely misconceived.
Complainant Argument
He was not a native English speaker and had experienced serious health problems. If he was confused by the WRC Website, he requested some latitude.
Adjudication Viewpoint
In a case where a complete change of referral legislation is sought the agreement of both Parties is a requirement. This was not forthcoming.
It was also understood that a parallel complaint involving both Parties under different and more appropriate Legislation was shortly due to be heard at the WRC.
Accordingly, this complaint Adj-00060108 had to be dismissed at the start of proceedings.
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complaint is filed under inappropriate Legislation and has to be dismissed on that ground. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and 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 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
CA: 00072748-001
The Complaint is misconceived and has to be deemed Legally Not properly Founded. It is unsuccessful.
Dated: 25th of May 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Road Transport Regulations SI No 36/2012. |