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-00020598-001

17/07/2018

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-00020598-002

17/07/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00020598-003

17/07/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00020598-004

17/07/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00020598-005

17/07/2018

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 3rd February 2014 until 2nd March 2018.   He contends that he was unfairly dismissed when the Respondent let him go due citing a downturn in work and then subsequently gave him a letter that he had let him go due to performance issues.   The other complaints before me are in relation to excessive working hours and lack of rest and breaks under the Organisation of Working Time Act and the failure of the Respondent to provide the Complainant with a written contract as in the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

The complaint 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of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012, was withdrawn at hearing.

The Complainant worked as a van driver for the Respondent. Prior to 2015, the Company name was different, and post the Complainant’s employment, it came to his attention that the employer is in the process of establishing a new corporate entity with the same registered address.   The Complainant is concerned that the respondent may be attempting to frustrate his entitlement to recover compensation to which he is legally entitled.

The Complainant’s evidence is that he was carrying out deliveries in the early part of each day and that immediately upon return from that delivery run, he was required, without any break, to carry out more deliveries to a number of locations and typically this run would conclude between 11.30am and 1.00pm. Notionally the Complainant was then entitled to a break but in reality due to the routes becoming more busy he could not do so.   It is submitted that the Respondent has engaged in wholesale breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 by not affording the Complainant rest intervals and breaks at work (Section 12) and requiring him to work excessive hours in breach of Section 15. It is further contended that in breach of Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the Respondent failed to furnish the Complainant with written terms of conditions of employment.

In relation to the claim of unfair dismissal, it is submitted that on Friday 23 February 2018 the Complainant was informed that his employment was being terminated due to some unspecified loss of a contract. When the Complainant sought written confirmation, he was provided with a letter from the employer stating that unfortunately his employment was terminated due to ‘performance issues’. It is submitted that as there were no procedures, no issue taken with the Complainant, the dismissal was fundamentally unfair.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing or send a representative.

CA-00020598-001       Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The complaint here is that the Complainant was not afforded his statutory entitlements to rests and intervals at work as provided for in Section 12 of the Act.       Section 12 provides:

“12 – (1) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes.

(2) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 6 hours without allowing him or her a break of at least 30 minutes; such a break may include the break referred to in subsection (1)”

Based on the evidence of the Complainant that due to the way in which his working day was structured, he was not afforded breaks, I find his complaint well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €1,500 compensation.

CA-00020593-003   Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The complaint here is that the Respondent acted in breach of Section 15 of the Act by requiring the Complainant to work more than an average of 48 hours per week over a period.

Section 15 provides:

“15. – (1) An employer must not permit an employee to work , in each period of 7 days, more than an average of 48 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a “reference period”) that does not exceed –

(a)    4 months…”

Based on the uncontested evidence I find that the Complainant on occasions worked in excess of 48 hours and I find his complaint to be well founded. I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €2,500 compensation.

CA-00020598-004 Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

The complaint is that the Respondent failed to furnish the Complainant with written terms of conditions as provided for in Section 3 of the Act.   Section 3 of the Act provides that not later than 2 months after the commencement of employment, the employer shall be required to furnish the employee with written terms of the employee’s employment.

Based on the evidence of the Complainant, I find his complaint to be well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €1,000 compensation.

CA-00020598-005   Unfair Dismissal Act 1977

From the evidence, I find that the Complainant was dismissed from his employment and retrospectively informed that there were ‘performance issues’. No procedures were invoked and no right of reply or appeal was given. In the circumstances, I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. I find compensation to be the appropriate remedy. I have taken into account the evidence regarding obtaining employment after the dismissal and I set compensation of €3,750 as appropriate.   I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €3,750.

The Complainant was unfairly dismissed and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €3,750.