FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 28(1), ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997 PARTIES : MCR PERSONNEL LTD - AND - SEAN LYNCH DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appealing of Rights Commissioner's Decision r-116177-wt-11/MMG.
BACKGROUND:
2. A Rights Commissioner hearings took place on the 11th January 2012 and the following Decision was issued on the 17th April 2012:
- "The records presented by the [Company] demonstrate that the rate of pay ... provides for Sunday premium and unsocial hours. It is my decision therefore that the [Worker's] case must fall."
The Worker appealed the Decision of the Rights Commissioner to the Labour Court on the 1st May 2012, in accordance with Section 28(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. Labour Court hearings took place on the 12th July 2012 and the 7th December 2012.
DETERMINATION:
- This is an appeal by John Lynch (the Claimant) against the decision of a Rights Commissioner in a claim against MCR Personnel Limited (the Respondent) under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. The complaint relates to an alleged failure by the Respondent to pay the Claimant a premium in respect of Sunday working. The Claimant’s employment with the Respondent ended on 15thJune 2011.
The complaint was referred to the Rights Commissioner on 11thNovember 2011. Having regard to the time-limit specified at s.27(4) of the Act the cognisable period for the claim runs from 12thMay 2011 to 15thJune 2011. It is accepted that the Claimant did not work on any Sunday during this period. In these circumstances the Claimant applied for an extension of time pursuant to s.27(5) of the Act.
In a submission in support of his application the Claimant outlined the circumstances in which he delayed in making the within claim. He told the Court that he was unaware of his right to a Sunday premium and that he did not know under what statute such an entitlement arose. He said that he had taken advice from various bodies but that the correct legal position had not been pointed out to him.
In effect the Claimant is relying on ignorance of his legal rights to justify the delay in presenting his claim. InMinister for Finance v Civil and Public Services Union & Ors[2007] 18 E.L.R. 36, the High Court (per Laffoy J.) held that the jurisprudence that generally governs the application of limitation periods under the Statute of Limitations 1957 should apply to statutory time-limits such as that in issue in the instant case. In that case the Court pointed out that, except in the case of a person under a disability, ignorance of one’s legal rights, as opposed to the underlying facts giving rise to those rights, cannot be accepted as an excuse for not bringing a claim in time. Having regard to that decision, which is absolutely binding on this Court, an extension cannot be granted on the grounds relied upon by the Claimant.
It is accepted that the Claimant did not work on Sundays during the cognisable period for his claim. Accordingly the Court cannot accept that his claim is well-founded.
In these circumstances it is unnecessary for the Court to deal with the other issues arising in this case.
The Claimant’s appeal must be disallowed and the decision of the Rights Commissioner affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th January, 2013______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.