RTD1511

The Claimant presented a complaint to a Rights Commissioner alleging that he was required to work on three occasions in excess of 60 hours, contrary to Regulation 5 of the Regulations. The weeks in question were those ending on 6^thSeptember 2013, 9^thAugust 2013 and 30^thAugust 2013.

The Claimant further complained that the Respondent failed to provide him with notification in relation to the Regulations contrary to Regulation 11 of the Regulations and that he did not receive records of his hours of work in contravention of Regulation 12(f) of the Regulations.

The Court heard evidence from the Claimant, Mr Nicholas McGrath, Compliance Officer with the Respondent and Mr Chris Noonan, Commercial Manager with the Respondent.

The findings of fact made in this Determination are based on the Court’s evaluation of the evidence tendered or on the admissions made by the parties.

Regulation 5
Pay slips furnished to the Claimant by the Respondent were put in evidence. They showed that in the weeks in issue the Claimant’s hours of work were recorded as, 66, 64 and 64.50, respectively. Evidence was tendered on behalf of the Respondent to the effect that an analysis of its tracking system disclosed that on three occasions in the third week giving rise to this claim the truck on which the Claimant worked as a helper had deviated from its route to the location in which the home of the driver is located. It was submitted that these deviations accounted for the additional hours giving rise to the claim in that week.

Evidence was also given that in the second week in issue the Claimant was paid for additional hours by way of a bonus.

The Claimant contradicted both explanations in his evidence.

Having considered the totality of the evidence proffered the Court has concluded that any deviation that may have occurred is unlikely to have resulted in the Claimant working hours exceeding the maximum number of hours permitted by the Regulations. Moreover, the Claimant was the helper on the truck and there was no evidence to indicate that he was responsible for any deviation from the intended route. Nor was there any evidence that he was not at his place of work (which was the truck on which he worked) and at the Respondent’s disposal at all material times in the week in question.

In relation to the second week in issue the Court does not accept the explanation offered by the Respondent for the number of hours recorded on the Claimant’s pay slips.

No explanation was offered for the excessive hours worked on the first week in issue

In these circumstances the Court concurs with the finding of the Rights Commissioner that the Respondent contravened Regulation 5 in relation to the Claimant. The Rights Commissioner awarded the Claimant compensation in the amount of €1,000 for this contravention. The Court can see no reason to interfere with that award and it is affirmed.

Regulation 11
The Respondent issued a circular to all employees dated 15^thApril 2013 providing information in relation to the Regulations. In the Court’s view the issuance of that circular was sufficient compliance with regulation 11. Consequently the Court concurs with the finding of the Rights Commissioner that this Regulation was not contravened.

Regulation 12(f)
In response to a request from the Claimant’s solicitor the Respondent provided time sheets for the period requested and also provided other information by electronic means. In the Court’s view this was sufficient to comply with Regulation 12(f) of the Regulations. According the decision of the Rights Commissioner that this Regulation was contravened is set aside.

Outcome
The Respondent contravened Regulation 5 of the Regulations in relation to the Claimant. The Claimant is awarded compensation in the amount of €1,000.

The Respondent did not contravene Regulation 11 or Regulation 12(f)

The decision of the Rights Commissioner is varied accordingly.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
CO'R______________________
23rd October, 2015Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.