FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 28(1), ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997 PARTIES : BALLINALARD TRANSPORT LTD - AND - MR RIMANTAS KAZDAILIS (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Decision No: r-118329-wt-11/GC & R-122398-Wt-12/GC
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioners Decision No: r-118329-wt-11/GC & R-122398-Wt-12/GC. The issues concern breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation.A Decision issued on the 5th February 2013 and awarded the worker €3000 compensation. On the 11th February 2013, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Decision in accordance with Section 28(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th June 2013. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal by Mr Rimantas Kazdalis against the Decision of a Rights Commissioner in a claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 (the Act) against Ballinalard Transport Limited. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent was in breach of Sections 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 22 of the Act. The Rights Commissioner found in favour of the Complainant’s claim and awarded him the sum of €3,000 compensation for various breaches of the Act. There was no cross-appeal by the Respondent.
For ease of reference the parties are given the same designation as they had at first instance. Hence Mr Rimantas Kazdalis will be referred to as “the Complainant” and Ballinalard Transport Limited will be referred to as “the Respondent”.
The Complainant worked for the Respondent as a haulage driver from 15thMay 2011 until 2ndDecember 2011. He submitted his claim under the Act to the Rights Commissioner Service on 8thMarch 2012.
The Respondent denied that there was a breach of Section 11 and held that the Complainant availed of his statutory breaks.
At the hearing before the Court the Complainant’s legal advisor clarified that the appeal before the Court was confined to the Rights Commissioner’s findings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act and was essentially against the quantum of the award.
The Complainant gave evidence with the assistance of an interpreter provided by the Court. In his evidence he stated that he normally had a break of eleven hours between finishing work each day and commencing work the following day. Furthermore, in his evidence he said that he normally received forty-five minutes meal break within six hours of commencing work each day. In the circumstances the Court can find no breach of Sections 11 or 12 of the Act and accordingly sees no grounds to increase the quantum awarded by the Rights Commissioner in respect of other breaches of the Act.
The Decision of the Rights Commissioner is upheld and the Complainant’s appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st June 2013______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.