Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Daniel  Victory

Dublin Bus

Representatives

Simon Donough B.L. instructed by Tallans Solicitors

In house  CIE Solicitors

Act

Complaint 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-00045593-001

09/08/2021

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

CA-00045593-002

09/08/2021

The complainant traces his difficulties with his hours giving rise to this complaint back to a disciplinary meeting which took place in March 2018 and says that it was at this point that he began to be bullied and harassed.

He says he has approached his manager on various occasions about his working hours but to no avail.

He submitted detail about a sample five-week block in 2021 which he initially said demonstrated an unfair distribution of shifts and excess hours and also says that he had worked average hours of 190 over a five-week period ‘on countless occasions’ since 2016

His complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act relating to working excess hours was withdrawn at the hearing (but he has other complaints under the Industrial Relations Act about his hours which are the subject of a separate referral).

The respondent denies that the complainant has been doing excessive hours and, to address the allegation that the complainant was being treated in an unfair way by reference to his co-workers provided details of the average working hours for the complainant’s co-workers which are seven hours thirty-eight minutes over twenty-six weeks.

The complainant’s average hours were well below this at seven hours and ten minutes.

In relation to his complaint under the Terms of Employment Information Act the complainant has the required statutory statement and his complaint relates to a copy not being given to him when he requested it.

In due course he did receive it.

The respondent says it is willing to engage with the complainant in relation to his hours at any time.

The complainant relied on some very historic interactions starting over four years earlier in 2018 and his submission in relation to the excess hours appeared to be based on a misunderstanding that his working hours do not include breaks and was without any foundation.

Despite stating in his submission that he was confident that he could prove that he worked over his average hours in fact he did not do so.

The respondent submitted in writing that his average hours were seven hours and ten minutes, and not the average 46 hours and 81 (sic) in a five week block that he alleged in his written submission; a total of 211 hours and 24 minutes. (That was in a period ending October 2nd 2020 well outside the cognisable period; the complaint was submitted on August 26th 2021).

I fully accept the respondent’s position regarding the actual hours worked by the complainant and he has no basis for a complaint in that regard and, at the hearing. the complainant did not dispute, or in any event did not rebut these figures.

The complaint was submitted on August 9th 2021 and all of the incidences of alleged breaches falling before the six months’ period leading up to this are not within the cognisable period.

This includes the examples given in his submission on September 24th and November 17th and 18th.

While it is clear that the complainant in this case has a continuing grievance with his employer arising from a range of interactions related to both these hours and separate matters arising from disciplinary processes he has failed to establish a basis for his complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act and withdrew the complaint.

Nonetheless, the complainant has raised certain aspects of the handing of this matter which I have addressed in the separate complaint under the Industrial Relations Act.

Finally, any alleged minor breach of the Terms of Employment Information Act in respect of the provision of the document on request by the complainant is insufficient to warrant any sanction and I make no award in that regard and find the complaint not well founded.

The complaints under the Organisation of Working Time Act are not well founded and were withdrawn.

I find that complaints CA-00045593-001 and -002 are not well founded.

Hours, Terms of Employment