RTD142

FULL RECOMMENDATION

RT/14/4

DETERMINATIONNO.RTD142

(R-136285-RTA-13/JW)

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 19, EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ROAD TRANSPORT) (ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME OF PERSONS PERFORMING MOBILE ROAD TRANSPORT ACTIVITIES) REGULATIONS, 2012

PARTIES :

NURENDALE LIMITED T/A PANDA WASTE

- AND -

AINARS LUCENS
(REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES)

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr McCarthy

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Decision r-136285-rta-13/JW.

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker appealed the Decision of Rights Commissionerr-136285-rta-13/JWto the Labour Court on 21st July, 2014 in accordance with the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 (the Regulations). A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th September, 2014, the following is the Court's Determination:-

DETERMINATION:

This is an appeal by Ainars Lucens (hereafter the Claimant) against the Decision of a Rights Commissioner in a claim against his employer, Nurendale Limited t/a Panda Waste (hereafter the Respondent), under the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 (S.I 36 of 2012) (hereafter the Regulations).

The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a driver on or about 20^thAugust 2004 and he remains so employed.

The Claimant contends that the Respondent contravened regulations 5, 8, 11 and 12 of the Regulations. In a decision dated 27^thJuly 2014 the Rights Commissioner found that the complaints in relation to regulations 5, 8 and 12 were well-founded. He found that the complaint in relation to regulation 11 was not well founded. The Rights Commissioner went on to award the Claimant compensation as follows: -

€600 in respect of the contravention of regulation 12
€1,000 in respect of the contravention of regulation 5
€1,000 in respect of the contravention of regulation 8

The Claimant appealed so much of the Rights Commissioner’s Decision which found that the Respondent had not contravened regulation 11. He also appealed against the quantum of compensation awarded in respect of the contraventions of regulations 5, 8 and 12.

Regulation 11
Regulation 11 of the Regulations provides as follows: -

11. An employer of a mobile worker shall notify the worker of the provisions of these Regulations and the provisions of any collective agreement, employment regulation order or registered employment agreement which is capable of application to that worker and keep available for inspection at all reasonable times a copy of these Regulations and any applicable employment regulation order or registered employment agreement.

The Claimant contends that he was not notified of the provisions of the Regulations. The Respondent put in evidence a copy of a document dated 26^thApril 2013, which was furnished to the Claimant at or about that time. This document refers to the Regulations and sets out the principal provisions thereof in relation to working time and breaks. The representative of the Respondent also told the Court that the provisions of the Regulations were brought to the Claimant’s attention during his initial training.

Conclusion of the Court
In the Court’s view the notification provided to the Claimant represents sufficient compliance with regulation 11. Accordingly, the Claimant’s appeal on that point is disallowed.

Appeal on Quantum
The Respondent accepts that it contravened regulations 5 (maximum working hours), Regulation 8 (breaks and intervals at work) and regulation 12 (maintenance of records and provision of records to an employee on being so requested). The representative of the Respondent told the Court that it has reorganised its management structure and had put in place arrangements directed at ensuring that such contraventions do not recur.

The representative of the Claimant pointed out that the Respondent had previously contravened the Regulations and that compensation in respect of those contraventions had been awarded against it. It was submitted that the compensations previously awarded did not dissuade the Respondent from further contravening the Regulations. It was submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded in this case was not of sufficient magnitude to deter further infractions of the Regulations.

Conclusion of the Court
Having carefully considered the submissions of parties the Court does not see any justifiable basis upon which it should interfere with the Decision of the Rights Commissioner on the quantum of compensation awarded to the Claimant.

Determination
The Decision of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed and the within appeal is disallowed.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Kevin Duffy
15th October, 2014______________________
JMcCChairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.