WTC/24/22 | DECISION NO. DWT2425 |
SECTION 44, WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997
PARTIES:
(REPRESENTED BY COPACETIC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS)
AND
MURESAN GAVRIL
DIVISION:
Chairman: | Mr Haugh |
Employer Member: | Ms Doyle |
Worker Member: | Mr Bell |
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00046675 (CA-00057519-001)
BACKGROUND:
The Complainant appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court on the 22 March 2024. A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 13 August 2024.
The following is the Labour Court's Decision:
DECISION:
Background to the Appeal
This is an appeal by Mr Muresan Gavril (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00046675/CA-00057519-001, dated 11 March 2024) under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 22 March 2024. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 13 August 2024.
Factual Background
The Complainant was employed by Mercury Security & Facilities Management Limited (‘the Respondent’) as a security officer between 14 September 2022 and his dismissal on 29 March 2023. His contract of employment, dated 14 September 2022, provides that the Complainant’s hours of work ‘shall be in excess of 40 hours per week’ and in accordance with a variable rota that could be accessed on a named App. His agreed rate of pay was €14.00 per hour, gross.
The Complaint
The Complainant submits that between 14 September 2022 and 22 March 2023, the Respondent failed to provide him with forty hours work per week on several occasions with the result that he had a shortfall of 292.5 hours of work in that period. He calculates the monetary value of the shortfall as €4,095.00. He is seeking compensation for this pursuant to section 27 of the Act.
Discussion and Decision
There is no provision in the Act that permits the Court to provide redress to the Complainant in respect of the matter he complains of. His complaint, therefore, as framed under the Act, is misconceived.
The decision of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed and the appeal fails.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court | |
Alan Haugh | |
ÁM | ______________________ |
13 August 2024 | Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.