DWT2429

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00037636 (CA-00048929-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court on the 9 February 2024. A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 23 July 2024.

The following is the Labour Court's Decision.

DECISION:

Introduction

This is an appeal by Muriel Doherty of decision ADJ-000377636 CA00048929--001 of an Adjudication Officer in her complaint against her then employer Choc Latte Cleaning Services Ltd. The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was not well founded. The complaint was made pursuant to a contravention of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the Act). In line with the normal practice of the Court, the parties are referred to in this Determination as they were at first instance. Hence, Muriel Doherty is referred to as the Complainant and Choc Latte Cleaning Services Ltd is referred to as the Respondent.

This claim was lodged with the WRC on the 3rd March 2022.  The cognisable period for the purpose of the Act is 4th September 2021 to the 3rd March 2022.

 Summary of Complainant’s submission

 The Complainant started work for the Respondent in July 2020 as the Operations Manager. It was her submission that she was managing a large number of staff covering schools, offices and also covid cleans. Cleaning times on sites varied from 8.00am to 10.00pm as she spent a lot of time driving staff to different sites. The Complainant stated that she downloaded a working hours app as she wanted to have a record of her hours. The Complainant submitted screenshots of the hours on the app and stated that based on the hours recorded she was working in excess of 48 hours a week.  The Complainant confirmed that the hours recorded the time she left her house in the morning to go to the office to the time she arrived home and included breaks. She went on to say that it could take anywhere between 30 minutes to 50 minutes to get to work in the morning but coming home could be quicker depending on where the last job was.

Summary of Respondent’s submission.

 The Respondent stated that they did not accept that the Complainant regularly worked in excess of 48 hours. They do not accept the hours she submitted as being accurate as the app she used was not approved. The Complainant refused to use the employers sign in system. However, she had a company car and was aware that the company used the GPS on the car to record the times she arrived at the office and completed her last job. They also used information from toll receipts.

 The Respondent submitted the GPS and toll details that they were relying on. It was their submission that this information clearly demonstrated that she did not work in excess of 48 hours.  The Complainant was including the time spent travelling to and from the job which was not working time and had made no deduction for breaks during the cognisable period or at all. 

Discussion

Having considered the submissions of both sides and having examined the records submitted the Court is satisfied that there was no breach of Section 12 of the Act and is satisfied that when account is taken of time taken in travelling to and from work and  the Complainant breaks, the Complainant did not work in excess of 48 hours per week on average during the cognisable period.     For the reasons referred to above the Court is satisfied that the Respondent did not contravene the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 in relation to the Complainant during the relevant time period.

 The appeal fails. The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AR	______________________
16 August 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.