CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 39 OF THE ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997
This Order corrects the original Decision ADJ-00047044 issued on December 14th, 2023 and amends the respondent’s name from ‘Acls Training, Codeblue’ to ‘ACLS Training Services Ltd, Trading as Codeblue’ and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047044
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Colin Maher | ACLS Training Services Ltd, Trading As Codeblue |
Representatives |
| Don Garry |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint 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-00057919-001 | 26/07/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/12/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The complainant has made a complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act specifying that the complaint related to the non-payment of annual leave due to him on the termination of the employment.
This aspect of the matter was resolved before the hearing and the complainant confirmed this in writing to the WRC.
The complaint form also made reference to the number of weekly hours worked by the complainant which he says exceeded the forty-eight hour maximum when aggregated over a four-month period.
He was paid €600 per week (for a forty hour week). |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Then complainant gave his evidence on affirmation and accepted that the matter of the annual leave had been resolved.
However, he says that, based on information drawn from his pay slips, over the period January 30th to May 31st, 2023, he worked a total of 838.5 hours. Dividing this by the seventeen weeks involved this gives an average of 49.32 hours over the period.
He says that he was disadvantaged in presenting his complaint by the failure of the respondent to provide him with the information he sought, even by means of a GDPR request.
The complainant says that he picked a four-month reference period because he had been advised to do so but that even had he picked the six-month period suggested by the respondent it would have produced the same result.
He also sought to introduce a complaint about rest periods and Sunday working but offered no specific evidence on this. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that the only complaint specified on the complaint form related to annual leave which has been resolved and this had been confirmed by the complainant.
It disputes that a complaint on the working hours, is properly before the WRC.
In the alternative it submits that it would be entitled to aggregate the working hours over a reference period of six months.
The respondent also submits that it is not properly on notice of a complaint related to rest breaks or Sunday working. |
Findings and Conclusions:
While it is true that the complainant did not particularise the issue of the alleged breach of the forty-eight hour maximum on the relevant section of the WRC complaint form, he clearly referred to it elsewhere on the form and it was also referred to in correspondence to the WRC seen by the respondent.
Notably, there is a reference to it in the important letter from the complainant confirming the settlement of the annual leave complaint, which could hardly have been missed by the respondent.
Therefore, I consider that it was properly before the hearing and that the respondent was fully on notice of it.
The same cannot be said of the alleged breaches of the rest period requirements or Sunday working and, in any event, the complainant could not offer any specific evidence on this aspect of the complaint.
He says that this was not entirely his fault as he claims the respondent has refused to provide him with the information he sought. The respondent disputes this and says he has been provided with all relevant information.
The respondent argued that it could equally have selected a six month reference period over which to aggregate the working hours.
The complainant submitted in his affirmed evidence that even if it had done so, the result would have been the same in respect of the excess hours, and the respondent did not offer any argument to contradict this. It was simply an attempt to discredit the fact that the complainant had selected a four-month period.
I find that the complainant’s assertion in this regard was credible and not disputed.
There is nothing either in the contract of employment to support the use of a six month period, and the respondent did not make out any case as to how that longer period should apply to its business, as provided for in the exceptions in Section 15 (1) (b) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
Accordingly, I find that a four-month period is the correct reference period and while the hours by which the respondent exceeded the forty-eight maximum may be small (an hour and a half per week), it happened consistently over the reference period (and according to the complainant beyond it).
This indicates a disregard for the requirements of the Act by the respondent, of which I take account in my decision. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the reasons set out above I find Complaint CA-00057919-001 to be well-founded and I award the complainant €2,500.00 for the breach of his rights under the Act |
Dated: 14th December 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Maximum hours. |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047044
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Colin Maher | Acls Training, Codeblue |
Representatives |
| Don Garry |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint 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-00057919-001 | 26/07/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/12/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The complainant has made a complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act specifying that the complaint related to the non-payment of annual leave due to him on the termination of the employment.
This aspect of the matter was resolved before the hearing and the complainant confirmed this in writing to the WRC.
The complaint form also made reference to the number of weekly hours worked by the complainant which he says exceeded the forty-eight hour maximum when aggregated over a four-month period.
He was paid €600 per week (for a forty hour week). |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Then complainant gave his evidence on affirmation and accepted that the matter of the annual leave had been resolved.
However, he says that, based on information drawn from his pay slips, over the period January 30th to May 31st, 2023, he worked a total of 838.5 hours. Dividing this by the seventeen weeks involved this gives an average of 49.32 hours over the period.
He says that he was disadvantaged in presenting his complaint by the failure of the respondent to provide him with the information he sought, even by means of a GDPR request.
The complainant says that he picked a four-month reference period because he had been advised to do so but that even had he picked the six-month period suggested by the respondent it would have produced the same result.
He also sought to introduce a complaint about rest periods and Sunday working but offered no specific evidence on this. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that the only complaint specified on the complaint form related to annual leave which has been resolved and this had been confirmed by the complainant.
It disputes that a complaint on the working hours, is properly before the WRC.
In the alternative it submits that it would be entitled to aggregate the working hours over a reference period of six months.
The respondent also submits that it is not properly on notice of a complaint related to rest breaks or Sunday working. |
Findings and Conclusions:
While it is true that the complainant did not particularise the issue of the alleged breach of the forty-eight hour maximum on the relevant section of the WRC complaint form, he clearly referred to it elsewhere on the form and it was also referred to in correspondence to the WRC seen by the respondent.
Notably, there is a reference to it in the important letter from the complainant confirming the settlement of the annual leave complaint, which could hardly have been missed by the respondent.
Therefore, I consider that it was properly before the hearing and that the respondent was fully on notice of it.
The same cannot be said of the alleged breaches of the rest period requirements or Sunday working and, in any event, the complainant could not offer any specific evidence on this aspect of the complaint.
He says that this was not entirely his fault as he claims the respondent has refused to provide him with the information he sought. The respondent disputes this and says he has been provided with all relevant information.
The respondent argued that it could equally have selected a six month reference period over which to aggregate the working hours.
The complainant submitted in his affirmed evidence that even if it had done so, the result would have been the same in respect of the excess hours, and the respondent did not offer any argument to contradict this. It was simply an attempt to discredit the fact that the complainant had selected a four-month period.
I find that the complainant’s assertion in this regard was credible and not disputed.
There is nothing either in the contract of employment to support the use of a six month period, and the respondent did not make out any case as to how that longer period should apply to its business, as provided for in the exceptions in Section 15 (1) (b) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
Accordingly, I find that a four-month period is the correct reference period and while the hours by which the respondent exceeded the forty-eight maximum may be small (an hour and a half per week), it happened consistently over the reference period (and according to the complainant beyond it).
This indicates a disregard for the requirements of the Act by the respondent, of which I take account in my decision. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the reasons set out above I find Complaint CA-00057919-001 to be well-founded and I award the complainant €2,500.00 for the breach of his rights under the Act |
Dated: 14th December 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Maximum hours. |