FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 28(1), ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997 PARTIES : O'NEILL & BRENNAN LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MR TOMMY TAYLOR) - AND - ROMAN CZECHOWICZ (REPRESENTED BY POLISH CONSULTANCY ENTERPRISE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Decision R-099800-Wt-10/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a general operative on the M-50 site. His main complaint is that he was not afforded breaks as required by Section 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, particularly if he was involved when there was a pour on tarmac/asphalt. He also claims that he was compensated for working on a Sunday and that he was not compensated for annual leave and public holiday entitlements accrued.
The case for the employer is that the worker was only employed for 6 weeks up to 18th September, 2010. He received all breaks due to him although perhaps not at the allocated time. He was paid a premium of 33.3% for all night work and weekend work, including the Sunday mentioned. After a temporary lay-off to the 27th October, 2010, he was given one week's notice as the Company was on a downward trend. The Company believes that the worker has no case.
The case was referred to a Rights Commissioner whose decision was as follows:
"I have considered the submissions made by both parties. On the balance of probability I accept the position made by the respondent that the claimant did take breaks and was paid for the breaks that he did take. I therefore do not find the claim well founded and therefore it fails."
The worker appealed the decision to the Labour Court on the 8th August, 2011, in accordance with Section 28(1) of the organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th November, 2011. The following is the Court's determination:
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Roman Czechowich against the decision of a Rights Commissioner in his claim against O'Neill & Brennan Limited under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. The Rights Commissioner found that the complaints were not well founded.
The complaints made in this case were presented in such vague and general terms as to make it impossible for the Respondent to adequately defend them or for the Court to properly evaluate them.
Suffice it to say that even if the breaches which appear to be alleged were established they would be so trivial in nature as not to merit any redress under Act.
In these circumstances the Court affirms the decision of the Rights Commissioner and disallows the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th December, 2011.______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.