FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 28(1), ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997 PARTIES : MARCHMONT PACKAGING LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MR JERZG GEBICKI (REPRESENTED BY PADRAIG MURPHY SOLICITOR) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal Of Rights Commissioner Decision r-109656-wt-11/RG
BACKGROUND:
2. Rights Commissioner hearings took place on 24th August 2011 and 3rd October 2011. A Decision was issued on 22nd November 2011.
The Worker appealed the Decision of the Rights Commissioner to the Labour Court on 1st December 2011, in accordance with Section 28(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th March 2012.
DETERMINATION:
- This is an appeal by Mr. Jerzy Gebicki (hereafter the Claimant) against the decision of a Rights Commissioner in his claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 against his employer, Marchmont Packaging Limited (hereafter the Respondent).
The particulars of the Claimant’s complaints under the Act were set out in his written submissions to the Court. They can be summarised as follows: -- Section 11
The Claimant alleges that in the period commencing on 11thJanuary 2011 and ending on 10thFebruary 2011 the Respondent contravened s. 11 of the Act in not affording him adequate daily rest. In addition to the claims particularised the Claimant contends that there were additional contraventions but details of these contraventions were not provided to the Court.
Section 12
The Claimant alleges that there was a continuing contravention of s.12 of the Act in that he was only allowed a 20 minute break in the course of a shift extending over more than six hours.
Section 13
The Claimant alleges that between 7thFebruary 2011 and 16thFebruary 2011 he was required to work over a period of 10 consecutive days without a break
Section 17
The Claimant alleges that he was regularly required to work overtime and was not given the requisite 24 hours notice.
Response of the Respondent
The Respondent does not deny that the breaches alleged occurred. It was submitted on its behalf that the breaches occurred in circumstances in which the exigencies of the business required a departure from the strict requirements of the Act. The Court was told that the Respondent is fully unionised and that it is governed by a Registered Employment Agreement. There is a grievance procedure under the agreement which could have been resorted to by the Claimant to resolve the subject matter of these complaints.
Conclusion of the Court
In the absence of any rebuttal evidence the Court finds that the Act was contravened in the manner alleged by the Claimant. His complaints are, therefore, well founded.
Redress
In the circumstances the Court considers that the award of compensation ordered by the Rights Commissioner should be increased to one of €3,000. In addition the Court makes an Order, pursuant to s.27(3)(b) of the Act directing the Respondent to comply with the provisions of the Act.Determination
The decision of the Rights Commissioner is amended accordingly - Section 11
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd April, 2012______________________
COFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Colm O'Flaherty, Court Secretary.