ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046442
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Raymond Chawla | Aer Lingus (Ireland) Ltd |
Representatives | Self-Represented | In-House Counsel |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00057257-001 | 21/06/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00057257-002 WITHDRAWN AT HEARING | 21/06/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00057257-003 WITHDRAWN AT HEARING | 21/06/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00057257-005 | 21/06/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints. The hearing was conducted in person in Lansdowne House.
I explained the procedural changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. An Adjudication Officer, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 in April 2021. No application was made that the hearing be conducted other than in public. The Complainant agreed to proceed in the knowledge that a decision issuing from the WRC would disclose his identity. Evidence was given under oath or affirmation and the parties were afforded the opportunity to cross examine. The legal ramifications of perjury were outlined to the parties.
While the parties are named in the Decision, I will refer to Mr Raymond Chawla as “the Complainant” and to Aer Lingus (Ireland) Ltd as “the Respondent”.
The Complainant attended the hearing and he represented himself. The Respondent was represented by Ms Elaine Mettler In-House Employment Counsel. Ms Carmel Byrne HR Case Manager, Ms Nicola Connolly, HR Business Partner Lead and Mr Stephen Concannon Customer Data Management Lead attended on behalf of the Respondent.
As the Complainant was a litigant in person, I explained the relevant law to him as we progressed through the hearing in terms of each one of his complaints.
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the fact of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by statute. I can confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into these complaints.
No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaints were raised at any stage of the proceedings.
Background:
This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 21/06/2023. The Complainant alleges contravention by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statute in relation to his employment with the Respondent. The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 03/11/2023.
The Complainant is at all material times employed by the Respondent as a Commercial Data & Analytics Specialist. The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 08/12/2021.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00057257-001 This is a complaint pursuant section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1977. The specific complaint detail states the Complainant was required to work more than the maximum permitted number of hours in the reference period 09/01/2023 to 10/02/2023.
CA-00057257-005 This is a complaint pursuant section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1977. The specific complaint detail provides the Complainant states he did not receive his paid holiday/annual leave entitlement.
When the Complainant was working remotely on Friday 17th January having offered to push his travel plans back he noticed when he logged on to the system that day it showed he was an annual leave. He had initially booked annual leave on that day but he cancelled the leave request to support work being done that week. The Complainant was clearly aggrieved to note that the system indicated he was on annual leave when he was in fact working from home.
The Complainant accepts at hearing there was no contravention of the Act within the cognisable period having accepted the Respondent’s explanation of the confusion created around events that took place Friday 17th and Saturday 18th February 2023.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00057257-001 It was accepted by the Respondent that the Complainant was working on a busy, challenging and important project for the business which completed in mid-February. The Respondent submits the Complainant’s account of his working hours was accepted for the period from January 2023 to mid-February 2023. The Respondent submits appropriate steps have been taken to compensate the Complainant by way of compensatory rest and local management are regularly monitoring the Complainant’s workload and work allocation and he has been advised that when working remotely he must record his actual work hours in the TMS system. The Respondent operates a working time system, TMS for employees (other than flight crew who use a separate system). Non-roster based employees are required to “clock in” using their ID badge when working onsite and to log days and hours worked remotely/from home on the TMS system. Employees are permitted, where feasible, to work from home as part of a hybrid working pattern and the expectation is that this working time is recorded on TMS and is conducted in line with the Respondent Remote Working Policy and Right to Disconnect Guidelines. The Respondent submits that when a six-month reference period is considered under the Organisation of the Working Time Act there has been no breach of the legislative requirements regarding a maximum working week. CA-00057257-005 The Respondent submits leave has not been refused and submits there was an issue where the Respondent was on annual leave but subsequently agreed to push his travel plans back to support work being done and he cancelled his leave for that specific day (Friday 17th February).
On 9 February, the Complainant requested annual leave on 17th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 24th February which was approved. The Respondent submits during a 1:1 on 14 February, the Complainant offered to cancel his annual leave request on Friday 17th to support work being done that week noting that he could push his travel plans back. The Respondent submits the Complainant did work from home on Friday 17th and Saturday 18th and thereafter went on annual leave (although it is acknowledged that he did log on and work for a short period on 20th February to provide support to the team). The Respondent submits the Complainant raised this with HR in March and that the annual leave days (17, 20 February) were credited back to him and the additional weekend days he was required to work were also returned to him by way of additional annual leave entitlement.
The Respondent submits that when the Complainant logged on that day the system showed that he was on annual leave. The Respondent submits the day was credited back to him and the additional weekend days he was required to work were returned to him by way of an additional annual leave entitlement.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00057257-001 It was agreed between the parties at hearing this matter has been resolved. In the circumstances I do not find this complaint to be well-founded. CA-00057257-005 The Complainant has not identified any contravention of the Act within the cognisable time period. Accordingly, I am satisfied there was no breach of the provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 within the cognisable time period. In the circumstances I do not find this complaint to be well-founded.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00057257-001 Complaint pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997
For the reasons stated above, I decide this complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00057257-005 Complaint pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997
For the reasons stated above, I decide this complaint is not well-founded.
Dated: 06/12/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Key Words:
Compliance with OWTA; TMS System; |