Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049528
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Dario Matijevic | Forest View Transport Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Mr John O’Connell, Director |
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-00060871-001 | 07/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00060871-003 | 07/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00060871-004 | 07/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00060871-005 | 07/01/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
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.
Background:
The Complainant swore an Affirmation at the outset of the hearing. Mr Jim O’Connell, Director gave evidence on affirmation on behalf of the Respondent. Documents were furnished in advance of the hearing with specific direction to furnish a contract of employment after the hearing. No further documents were considered in the making of this decision. The Complaint Form was shared with the parties, and they confirmed the details were correct. The Complainant confirmed in evidence his daily rate of pay was €150 net per day and was given a daily subsistence allowance. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00060871-001 It was the Complainant’s evidence that he was unsure about public holidays. When asked he did not identify the public holidays he claims he was entitled to. CA-00060871-003 It was the Complainant’s evidence that his hours were varied between 55 and 65 hours per week. It was his evidence that he was not provided with adequate rest periods. When asked to identify the dates he worked without an 11-hour break, he pointed to the 6 July 2023 when he finished at 16.15 and began work at 06.15 on 7 July 2023. On 1 November 2022, the Complainant gave evidence, with reference to the Respondent’s report, he finished work on 19.06 and stared on 2 November 2022 at 05.30. The Complainant was invited several times to identify the dates he did not receive his rest period. He confirmed he had received the Respondent’s driving reports with the working/driving time detailed in advance of the hearing on 21 March 2024. CA-00060871-004 It was the Complainant’s evidence that he never received a contract of employment. CA-00060871-005 The Complainant withdrew this complaint at the outset of the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00060871-001 It was the Respondent’s evidence that the Complainant was paid for his public holiday in June 2023. A copy of the payslip dated 16 June 2023 was presented which noted the public holiday and the reduced subsistence due to the public holiday. CA-00060871-003 It was the Respondent’s case that all the times are recorded digitally on the truck and was at all times compliant. CA-00060871-004 Mr O’Connell gave evidence that he provided the Complainant with a contract within the first month of his employment. He left it in his truck when he travelled to Dublin but did not receive a signed copy in return from the Complainant. A copy was furnished from the Respondent post hearing, as requested. CA-00060871-005 The complaint was withdrawn. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00060871-001 I accept the Respondent’s evidence based on the payslip of 16 June 2023, that the Complainant was paid the June public holiday. CA-00060871-003 The Complainant has brought this complaint. He was given every opportunity to set out the dates on which he did not receive a daily rest period. He had the Respondent’s evidence for 4 weeks in advance of the hearing to consider. It was his evidence that on 2 November 2022 he began work at 05.30 but the time sheet states a start time of 06.30 which gave him an 11.5 hour rest period between his working day. I find the complaint is not well founded. CA-00060871-004 I accept the Respondent’s evidence that a contract of employment was provided in accordance with Section 3 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. I find the complaint is not well founded. CA-00060871-005 The complaint was withdrawn. |
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-00060871-001 I find the complaint is not well founded. CA-00060871-003 I find the complaint is not well founded. CA-00060871-004 I find the complaint is not well founded. CA-00060871-005 The complaint was withdrawn. |
Dated: 02/05/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Contract of Employment – Hours of Work |