ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054813
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sohaib Ul Hassan | HSE |
Representatives | Self-represented | Eamonn Ross, Employee Relations Department |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 15 of the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006 - S.I. No. 507 of 2006 | CA-00066488-001 | 05/10/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/02/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
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:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. As the evidence of the parties was not in contention, neither the oath nor affirmation were administered in this case. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that he was not given study leave. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that the issue of study leave does not fall under consideration by this legislation. The complainant has been given his full allowance of annual leave. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The issue of study leave does not fall within the limits of the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006 - S.I. No. 507 of 2006. Neither does it fall under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is misconceived. |
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.
Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complaint is misconceived. |
Dated: 13/02/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation Regulations - Study Leave - Organisation of Working Time Act – complaint misconceived |