DWT2431

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00046067 (CA-00056814-005)

BACKGROUND:

The Employee appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court on 30 May 2024.

A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 30 August 2024.

The following is the Labour Court's Decision:

DECISION:

This matter comes before the Court as an appeal by Maria Popovici (the Appellant) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer in her complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 (the Act) against her employer Ailesbury Services (the Respondent).

The nomenclature of the Respondent on the face of the within decision is, as it must be, identical to the nomenclature employed on the face of his decision by the Adjudication Officer whose decision is under appeal.

The case.

The decision of an Adjudication Officer under appeal before the Court was identified by the Adjudication Officer in his decision in the following terms:

“The Complainant alleges that she did not receive daily rest periods.”

At the outset of the hearing the Court set out to the parties, who were both professionally represented, that, on plain reading of the decision of the Adjudication Officer, the matter before the Court concerned an allegation that the Respondent had been in breach of Section 11 of the Act. Section 11 provides as follows:

Daily rest period.

11.—An employee shall be entitled to a rest period of not less than 11 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours during which he or she works for his or her employer 

The representative of the Appellant submitted that no complaint had been before the Adjudication Officer in respect of an alleged breach of the Act at Section 11.

The Court clarified that, on appeal, it was confined to only those matters which had been decided by the Adjudication Officer, and any contention of error on the part of the Adjudication Officer was a matter for the Officer.

The Court invited submissions or authorities from the parties as to any contention that the Court could proceed in any manner other than that which had been outlined. Both parties declined to make any such submission or to put any authority before the Court in the matter.

Both parties acknowledged that the decision before the Court, on its terms, related only to matters addressed by Section 11 of the Act.

The Court invited the representative of the Appellant to advise the Court as to how he wished to proceed. He proceeded in oral submission to state that he had no complaint to make that the employer had breached the Act at Section 11. When asked to confirm that this statement amounted to his submission to the Court, he confirmed that it was.

The representative of the Respondent submitted that she acknowledged and agreed that the Appellant, through her representative, had confirmed that she had no complaint to make in relation to the Act at Section 11.

Decision

In light of the submission of the Appellant to the Court, the within appeal must fail.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed.

The Court decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
TH	______________________
18 September 2024	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.