DWT255

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00025414 (CA-00033208-001)

BACKGROUND:

An Adjudication Officer hearing took place on 20 July 2023 and a Decision was issued on 19 September 2024. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 25 September 2024 in accordance with section 28(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. A Labour Court hearing took place on 22 January 2025. The following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

1 Background

This is an appeal by Mr Rudolf Csikos (the Complainant) against decision ADJ-00025414 – CA 000-33208-001 of an Adjudication Officer. The complaint was made pursuant to a contravention of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the Act) by his then employer Keeling’s Logistics Solutions (the Respondent).   The complaint was in respect of alleged nonpayment of Sunday Premium. The Adjudication Officer held that the claim was deemed legally frivolous and deemed not properly found.

The claim was lodged with the WRC on 17 December 2019, therefore the cognisable period in accordance with the Act is 18 June 2019 to 17 December 2019.

2 Relevant Law

 Section 42 (1) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that an Adjudication Officer may dismiss a complaint if they are of the opinion that it is frivolous.

 Section 42 (3) sets out that in such a case the Labour Court on hearing the appeal can either uphold the decision of the Adjudication Officer or annul the decision and refer the complaint to the Director General of the WRC.

3 Summary of Complainant’s submission

 The Complainant submitted that when he commenced work, he was not required to work Sundays but over time Sundays became part of his roster with no change to is basic pay.  He identified a number of Sundays he had worked during the cognisable period.  He stated that his contract while making references to Saturday and other premiums did not mention Sunday premium. He therefore believes that he did not receive a premium for the Sundays he worked during the relevant period.

 4 Summary of Respondent’s submission

 The Respondent stated that they rejected the claims. The Respondent stated that they negotiate with SIPTU for collective bargaining purposes for the Complainant’s grade. They had engaged in extensive local negotiations on the matter of Sunday premium dating back to 2020 and reached agreement in October 2023. The Respondents representative submitted that this was a collective issue, and the Court was precluded from hearing it. It was their submission that the Adjudication Officer was right to declare the complaint frivolous.

5 Discussion.

The only issue that falls to the Court to determine is whether or not this complaint is frivolous. The Court determines that the Complainant has identified potential breaches of the Act during the relevant period in 2019. The fact that the Respondent engaged in collective discussions with the Union the following year on Sunday premium, does not take from his statutory entitlement to pursue his complaint.  The Court therefore finds that the complaint is not frivolous.

6 Determination

 The Court annuls the decision of the Adjudication Officer and returns this complaint to the Director General

 The Court so decides

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
FC	______________________
18 February 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.