ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009271
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Driver | Transport Company |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00011707-001 | 01/06/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 | CA-00011707-002 | 01/06/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 | CA-00011707-003 | 01/06/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/09/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In advance of the hearing the Respondent secured the postponement of the two Complaints brought under the Mobile Road Transport Regulations. These are to be listed at another time.
This singular matter comes before an Adjudicator of the Workplace Relations Commission on foot of certain complaints which are contained in a Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 1st of June 2017, wherein a contravention of certain relevant provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997 have been alleged.
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 this matter has been referred to the Adjudicator Services by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission and in particular it has been referred so that this matter can be inquired into and the parties be given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint.
The Complaint relates to an incident which occurred on the 1st of December 2016 which is six months and one day before the Workplace Relations Complaint Form issued. I heard extensive argument from both sides regarding the existence of a reasonable cause for the delay in presenting the complaint. On balance I am minded to favour the Respondent‘s Application for an extension of time. I am particularly drawn to the findings of the Labour Court in the case of Cementation Skanska -v- Michael Moriarty DWT0340- 28th of October 2003.
Background:
The Complainant is a night time driver with the Respondent company. He is a long standing employee. The Complainant works five nights out of seven. Ordinarily the complainant will start his shift later into the evening and drive goods to supermarkets to arrive at a pre-directed destination in the early hours of the morning. The Complainant operated out of one of two depots situate in the North Side of the Capital. On the 1st of December 2016 the Complainant was told that he was to do a run down to Kerry. It is common case amongst the Complainant and his Colleagues as well as Management and their Representatives that the journey time to Kerry is a fourteen hour round trip. Drivers are entitled by Law to expect 11 hours rest period in any 24 hour period. The reality is that if a driver is asked to drive to Kerry for fourteen hours that driver does not have enough hours left in a twenty four hour period to enjoy 11 hours rest. Whilst the Complainant objected on this occasion to being asked to do this long distance run, he was overruled and had to perform the task and enjoy a limited rest period of only ten hours in the 24 hour tranche. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant says the demand made of him was contrary to the Organisation of Working Time Act of 1997 and a breach of what is stipulated under EU Directives on this subject.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent outlined the circumstances wherein it is permissible to apply a derogation to the EU recommended norm and take a nine hour rest break and not an eleven hour rest break. The Respondent acknowledged that this was not a derogation which the Complainant agreed to. He did not want to avail of the reduced rest period option. In outlining it’s own position, the Employer recognised that, as part of the outcome of a Grievance process taken by the Complainant in respect of these issues, the Employer acknowledged the Complainant’s position. Moving forward, the Employer respects the fact that the Complainant should not be forced to undertake a fourteen hour journey where the Complainant seeks to preserve his entitlement to an eleven hour rest period in any given 24 hour period. |
Findings and Conclusions:
On balance I find there was a breach of the Organisation of the Working Time Act and specifically in relation to the issue of Statutory Rest periods. The Complaint was therefore well founded. |
Decision:
Pursuant to Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (as amended) and Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and as the Adjudication Officer hearing the within matters, I require the Employer to recognise the Employee’s entitlement to an eleven hour rest period in any 24hour period.
I further require that the employer pay to the employee compensation in the amount of €200.00 which I believe to be just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.
Dated: 16.11.17
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|