ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00000675
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Drivers | Transport Company |
Representatives | Kieron Connolly SIPTU | Einde O'Donnell Purdy FitzGerald Solicitors |
Complaints:
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-00001005-001 | 19/11/2015 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00001006-001 | 19/11/2015 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00001007-001 | 19/11/2015 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00001008-001 | 19/11/2015 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00001009-001 | 19/11/2015 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00001010-001 | 19/11/2015 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00001011-001 | 19/11/2015 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00001012-001 | 19/11/2015 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00001013-001 | 19/11/2015 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00001014-001 | 19/11/2015 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/11/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainants, all 10, have been employed by the Respondent Company as Drivers following a Transfer of Undertaking from another named Respondent. They referred complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission on 19th November 2015 alleging the Respondent had breached Section 17 of the Act in that they had not been notified of their finishing times each day of work. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
These complaints relate to the failure of the Respondent Company to provide these 10 named Drivers with 24 hours notice of their finishing time as required by Section 17 of the Act. It was only when they reported to the Office for work each day that they would be informed of their finishing time. This issue has been dealt with by the Labour Court on a number of occasions and the Labour Court has upheld the complaints. SIPTU referenced three Labour Court Decisions in support of their arguments. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent identified two named Complainants who had previous claims heard by an Adjudication Officer and the Labour Court. Therefore ,the only reference period covered by the current complaint in relation to these two named employees is up to 6th August 2015 The issue of finishing times in relation to drivers has been clarified by the Labour Court in its Decision in DMR Transport v Mr Jacek Majchrzak DWT 1416 in which the Court held as follows – “The Claimant had regular starting times. However, his finishing time varied by virtue of the task and finish nature of his employment. Consequently, the finishing time was not determined by the Respondent per se. Rather, the finishing time was determined solely by the volume of work to be undertaken and the pace at which the work was performed. Consequently, finishing times were not capable of ascertainment in advance. It follows that the Respondent could not have provided the Claimant a statement specifying his finishing time. In these circumstances the Court cannot see how s.17 could apply to the type of work arrangement under which the Claimant was employed. The Court finds the Respondent did not infringe s.17 of the Act”. |
Findings and Conclusions:
On the basis of the evidence and with particular reference to the decision in 2014 of the Labour Court in DWT 1416 involving DMR Transport v Mr Jacek Majchrzak I find that the Respondent has not breached Section 17 of the Act in relation to the provision of 24 hours notice of finish times which is determined by the task and finish nature of the employment |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
In accordance with Section 41 (5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 I declare these complaints are not well founded. |
Dated: 19/01/18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin
Key Words:
Section 17 OWTA- Finish Times of Drivers. Labour Court Decision in DWT 1416 applicable |