DWT2435

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00002285 (CA-00003039-009)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court on the 5 October 2018. A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 6 November 2024.

 The following is the Labour Court's Decision:

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal by Mr Robert Pirsch (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-0002285/CA-0003039-009, dated 4 September 2018) under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 5 October 2018. The Court heard the within appeal, along with seven related appeals on several dates over the course of 2024 with the final hearing date occurring on 6 November 2024. The related appeals bear the following reference numbers: WTC/24/62; PW/18/60; TE/18/54;TE/24/62; TE/24/63; TE/24/64 and TE/24/65.

The Complainant gave sworn evidence to the Court as did two witnesses called on behalf of Ryanair Designated Activity Company (‘the Respondent’). Only the evidence relevant to the within appeal is recited in this decision.

The Factual Background

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Ground Handling Agent with effect from 8 November 2008 and was based at Dublin Airport. He signed a contract of employment on 6 November 2008 and that contract was countersigned on behalf of the Respondent on 12 November 2008. The Complainant’s salary was €2,945.51 gross per month. He worked a three-shift pattern and was notified of his shifts by means of a roster that was posted in the staff break room some two weeks in advance.

The Complaint

The Complainant submits that he when he commenced employment with the Respondent, the duration of his shifts was 8.5 hours but that the Respondent unilaterally extended the duration of shifts to 9.0 hours in 2018 and that remained the case thereafter. He also submits, that his shift was sometimes extended and he was required to work longer than he had been rostered for, although he was not given twenty-four hours’ advance notice of this.

The Respondent’s Submission and Evidence

It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the company has been operating nine-hour shifts for baggage handlers since 2009. The Respondent also submits that the Complainant was put on full notice in his written contract of employment of the unpredictable nature of his working hours given the nature of the Respondent’s business.

Mr Ray Keegan, Assistant Ramp Co-Ordinator at Dublin Airport, gave extremely detailed evidence in relation to the monthly rosters distributed to the Complainant and his colleagues, normally two weeks in advance. According to the witness, printed copies of the roster were placed on a desk at the entrance to the staff break room. He also said that a crew list was placed on the notice board each day for the following day to indicated which flights each individual baggage handler was assigned during their shift on that day.

Discussion and Decision

The Court fully accepts the accuracy of the detailed evidence given by Mr Keegan in relation to the advance provision of monthly rosters and crew lists. The Court also accepts that in the aviation industry flights are occasionally delayed and that when this happens late in the day, baggage handlers and other staff members are inevitably required to work beyond their rostered hours. Such delays cannot be predicted and there is no reality to the suggestion that an employer could give twenty-four hours’ advance notice of them to employees. The Complainant was informed of this reality in his written contract of employment when advised that the nature of the work meant that his working hours were not entirely predictable.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
ÁM	______________________
29th November 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.