FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 28 (1), ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997 PARTIES : O' LEARY INTERNATIONAL UNLIMITED COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES) - AND - MARIUS ROCA (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s). ADJ-00009456 CA-00012420-002/003/005/008/009/010/011.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Employee referred his case to the Labour Court on 18 September 2018 in accordance with Section 28(8) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.A Labour Court hearing too place on 21 November 2019. The following is the Determination of the Court:
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Marius Roca (the Complainant) against an Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00009456 given under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the Act) in a claim that O’Leary International Unlimited Company (the Respondent) had breached various sections of the Act. The Adjudication officer upheld the complaints and awarded various amounts of compensation However, the Complainant is seeking that the compensation awarded be increased.
Complainant’s case
It is the Complainant’s case that contrary to section 17 (1) he was not given notice of his finishing times and that he was not always given 24 hours’ notice of his starting time.
The Respondent’s case.
The Respondent accepted that it did not always notify the Complainant in advance of his finishing times but told the Court that because of the nature of the business it was difficult to predict finishing times. It was the Respondent’s submission that it did provide 24 hours’ notice of start times. The Respondent accepted that there had been beaches of the Act in respect of finishing times.
The Court noting that the Respondent accepts it breached the Act determines that the complaint is well founded and awards compensation of €500.
It is the Complainant’s case that contrary to section 20 (2) he was not paid his normal rate of pay for annual leave on two occasions.
The Respondent accepted that on two occasions the Complainant was not paid his normal rate of pay for annual leave.
The Court noting that the Respondent accepts it breached the Act determines that the complaint is well founded and awards compensation of €500.
It is the Complainant’s case that contrary to section 21 (6) on three occasions in 2017 the Complainant was paid less than his normal rate of pay for three bank holidays.
The Respondent accepted that on three occasions the Complainant was not paid his normal rate of pay for public holidays.
The Court noting that the Respondent accepts it breached the Act determines that the complaint is well founded and awards compensation of €500.
It is the Complainant’s case that contrary to section 17(2) he was not given at least 24 hours’ notice of his start and finishing times.
It is the Respondents submission that this is a duplicate claim.
The Court has already addressed that fact that the Complainant was not notified of his start and finish times in line with the Act therefore this complaint must fail.
Determination
The Court determines that there has been a number of breaches of the Act by the Respondent and therefore the complaints with the exception of the last complaint must succeed. The Court awards compensation in the amounts set out above taking into consideration the fact that the Respondent did not dispute the breaches. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.
The Court so Determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
TH______________________
17 December 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.