AOD181

The Complainant referred his claim under the Act to the Workplace Relations Commission on 23^rdJuly 2017.

For ease of reference the parties are given the same designations as they had at first instance. Hence Mr Wiktor Glogiewicz will be referred to as “the Complainant” and DFS Trading Limited will be referred to as “the Respondent”.

Background

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 14^thJune 2016 as a driver helper and subsequently became a HGV driver/helper. The Complainant’s employment terminated on 2^ndJuly 2017.

Summary of the Complainant’s Case

Mr Blazej Nowak on behalf of the Complainant claimed that the Respondent was in breach of the Act. He said that the Complainant was paid a monthly salary up to €2500.00, which he said consisted of basic salary and other different components.

Mr Nowak submitted that the Adjudication Officer’s decision to dismiss proceedings by invoking Section 42 of the of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 was made without considering the case on its merits. He stated that the Adjudication Officer was incorrect to dismiss the case purely on the basis that the Complainant was paid €2500.00 per month and worked 50 hours per week. In his submission to the Court, Mr Nowak made the point that there were different taxable components in the Complainant’s salary, therefore it does not mean that there was no breach of the Act. He referred to the Schedule to the Act. He sought to have the Decision annulled and the claim referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission for adjudication on its merits.

Summary of the Respondent’s Position

Ms Mary Paula Guinness, B.L., instructed by Eversheds Solicitors on behalf of the Respondent denied that the Respondent was in breach of the Act. She furnished the Complainant’s contract of employment which stated that the Complainant was paid a basic annual salary of €25,419.68 and was rostered to work 44 hours per week, therefore, she stated that he was paid well over the national minimum wage. In addition, she stated that the Complainant was paid at overtime rates for hours worked beyond his normal working hours. Ms Guinness provided the Court with records of the hours worked by the Complainant entitled“Attendance and Overtime Claim Record”which was completed on a weekly basis and with payslips to substantiate the Respondent’s position.

Findings and Conclusions of the Court

Having considered the submissions made by both parties and having examined the hours of work record and the payslips furnished to the Court, the Court finds that there are no valid grounds to remit the case to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission for further adjudication on the merits of the Complainant’s case under the Act. Moreover, in the absence of detail to rebut the Respondent’s contention the Court affirms the Decision of the Adjudication Officer.

Determination

The Court affirms the Decision of the Adjudication Officer and rejects the Complainant’s appeal.

The Court so Determines.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
9 November, 2018Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.