ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00051572
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Leo Hogan | Entegro |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives | Mullaney Walsh Maxwell Solicitors | Mr. Barry O’Mahony BL, instructed by ARAG Legal Protection |
Complaint:
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-00063212-002 | 30/04/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/07/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
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 commenced employment on 4th January 2022. On the date of the hearing, the Complainant remained in employment with the Respondent.
On 30th April 2024, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that that he worked in excess of the maximum weekly working hours permitted by the impleaded legislation. In the “complaint specific details” section of the complaint form, the Complainant stated that the frequently had to drive a significant distance to work and did not receive any payment in respect of the same. By response, the Respondent submitted that the allegation in question is not actionable under the impleaded legislation and that the matter could not succeed. During the hearing, the Complainant, via his representative, accepted that this was the case and the matter was not pursued.
A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finailsed on, 1st July 2024. Both parties issued written submissions in advance of the hearing. Given the nature of the same, no witness evidence was called in relation to the dispute. |
Summary of the Complainant’s Case:
The complaint as referred was not pursued by the Complainant. |
Summary of the Respondent’s Case:
By submission, the Respondent stated that the allegation set out by the Complainant, that he did not receive payment for time spent travelling to certain roles, was not actionable under the impleaded legislation. In such circumstances, they submitted that the matter must be dismissed. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Regarding the present matter, the Respondent submitted that the allegations set out by the Complainant were not actionable under the impleaded legislation. During a preliminary hearing in relation to the same, the Complainant’s representative accepted that this was the case, and without prejudice to any further proceedings or developments in relation to the matter, did not pursue this particular complaint at the hearing. |
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.
I find that the complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 9th of September 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Driving Time, Working Time |