ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010643
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Stores Assistant | A Retailer |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00014096-001 | 21/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00014096-002 | 21/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00014096-003 | 21/09/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/04/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Stores Assistant and stated he did not receive a written contract within two months of commencing employment in breach of the Terms of Employment Information Act 1994 and he was denied to take his fifteen minute breaks in line with the Organisation of Working Time Act 1977. He withdrew his complaint under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 as it emerged it was not an industrial dispute. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was employed as a Stores Assistant from October 2014 to December 2017 (exact termination date was not available). He submitted his claim to the WRC on September 21st 2017 and therefore the eligible period for consideration under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 is six months prior to this date. He did not receive a written contract within two months of commencing employment but did receive one in October 2015, which he did not sign as it had various issues in it he did not agree with. The Complainant did admin duties concerning phones and was informed by email , bullet point 5 of that email, dated November 30th 2016 that “you can close store only 10mins, no more than 10 mins” and thus he was only allowed take a maximum of 10 minutes break at any one time on a constant basis. He earned 350 Euro net per week. He had to stay inside for his breaks. He said things improved in then last three months of his employment. The Complainant general worked 9am to 6pm daily.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent accepted they did not provide a written statement of terms within two months of the Complainant commencing employment. The Respondent accepted that the Complainant was limited in his break times but they stated he could leave the premises at any time.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Claim reference number CA-00014096-003 under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 was withdrawn by the Complainant at the Hearing. With regard to claim reference number CA-00014096-001 under the Terms of Employment Information Act 1994 the Respondent admitted that they were in breach of section 3.(1) of the Act by not providing the Complainant with a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment within two months of his start date. I find this claim well founded and award the Complainant 1,400 Euros for this breach of the legislation.With regard to claim reference number CA-00014096-002 the Complainant submitted an email sent to him (and others) dated November 30th 2016 which restricted his break times to a ten minute maximum. This is in clear breach of Section 12.1 of the Act which states “ An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than four hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes”. Given the severity of the breach, the daily nature of the breach the active breach of the Act by the Respondent denying the Complainant his rights under the Act by issuing the instruction by email, I find the claim to be well founded and award the Complainant 2,000 Euros compensation for this breach of the legislation. |
Dated: 31st July 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Key Words:
Breaks not being allowed in compliance with the Act |