Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Coach Driver

Chauffeur Services

Representatives

Dylan Macaulay of D M Macaulay & Co Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00035618-001

08/04/2020

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

CA-00035618-002

08/04/2020

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

CA-00035618-003

08/04/2020

The complainant started work for the respondent as a coach driver from 9 October 2018 and claims  that he was not paid for all the hours he worked, he was made to work excessive hours and was constructively dismissed in November 2019. The respondent denies the claims and says the complainant left of his own accord.

CA-00035618-001 – Payment of Wages: the complainant submits he raised issues with the respondent about his pay but they were not resolved before his departure. He worked overtime and additional hours and was not paid for them. Also, he was promised a pay rise but this did not materialise.

CA-00035618-003 – Organisation of Working Time Act (OWTA): the complainant submits he was pressured into working more than the permitted average of 48 hours per week.

CA-00035618-002 – Unfair Dismissal Act: the complainant submits he was pressured to work excessive hours. Despite raising this issue with the respondent nothing changed.

Also, the complainant submits unsubstantiated and untrue complaints were levelled at him. His working conditions became so difficult and, as there was no corrective action by the respondent, he had no choice but to resign on 19 October 2019 (giving 4 weeks notice) and this amounts to constructive dismissal.

CA-00035618-001 – Payment of Wages: the respondent submits the complainant’s contract confirmed he was employed on an annual salary of €31,000 to work an average of 40-44 hours per week, including Saturdays and Sundays. They showed a breakdown of the complainant’s hours for 31 weeks of his employment, which shows he worked an average of 35 hours per week. They accepted he was underpaid on 2 weeks, a total of 10.5 hours.

CA-00035618-003 – Organisation of Working Time Act (OWTA): the respondent submits the complainant was not pressured into working more than the permitted average of 48 hours per week. The spreadsheet shows he worked a total of 48 hours on two weeks and less on the remaining weeks.

CA-00035618-002 – Unfair Dismissal Act: the respondent submits the complainant voluntarily resigned on 15 October 2019, via an email which said he sincerely enjoyed his time with the respondent. The Managing Director (MD) gave evidence that a number of complaints were made about the respondent and he had a meeting with him on 8 October 2019, after less formal attempts to resolve the complaints were not successful. The MD put the complaints to the complainant but he did not feel he was getting through to him. The MD told him he had to decide if he wanted to meet the standards required by the company. The complainant chose to resign a week later. The respondent submits the complainant did have an alternative to resignation.

CA-00035618-001 – Payment of Wages: the complainant’s case is he worked long days for which he was not paid overtime and more hours than he was contracted to work, again, for which he was not paid. The complainant was given the opportunity to submit evidence to support his claims. He provided copies of ‘Trip Tickets’ for a number of days and says he started work earlier than indicated a number of times and finished late on other days.

The respondent says he worked some long days, because of the nature of the work, and some short days but, overall, he was paid in accordance with his contractual hours; with the exception of two weeks.

I do not find the complainant’s evidence sufficient to support his claims. I accept the respondent’s evidence showing he was paid in accordance within his contract, apart from two weeks when he was underpaid a total of 10.4 hours. I therefore find this claim is well founded and conclude the complainant is entitled to 10.5 hours at €15, a total of €157.50.

CA-00035618-003 – Organisation of Working Time Act (OWTA): the complainant claims he was pressured into working more than the permitted average of 48 hours per week, however he has not presented evidence to support this claim. I find this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00035618-002 – Unfair Dismissal Act: the complainant submits he was pressured to work excessive hours, and unsubstantiated and untrue complaints were levelled at him. Whilst the respondent says he resigned voluntarily after a number of complaints were put to him and he was asked if he would be able to meet the protocols required of a driver. My conclusion is the complainant did have the option to talk to the MD after the meeting on 8 October 2019 and discuss the standards required of him. He chose not to take this opportunity and resigned.

I find the complainant has failed to establish, as required in a claim of constructive dismissal, that the respondent’s conduct was unreasonable or was such that he had no option but to resign. 

CA-00035618-001: for the reasons give above I find the complaint is well founded and I award the complainant €157.50.

CA-00035618-003: for the reasons given above I find the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00035618-002: for the reasons given above, pursuant to section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, I find that the complainant resigned from his employment of his own volition and was not constructively dismissed and the complaint is not well founded.

Constructive dismissal – not well founded