ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00043841
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | David Grimes | Skc Providers Ltd |
Representatives | Self represented | Barry Kenny Kenny Sullivan Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 | CA-00054215-003 | 19/12/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00054215-004 | 19/12/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/06/2023 & 08/09/2023
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. The complainant and three witnesses for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that he was penalised for making a complaint under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. He also submitted that he was penalised for invoking his rights or Organisation or Working Time Act, 1997. The complainant stated that he saw employees being lifted up the racking systems in the respondent’s warehouse facility. He stated that this was a breach of the Safety, Health and Welfare at work Act. He also stated that he was cursed at on 28 November, 2 December and 5 December |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that no complaints were made under either Act cited by the complainant. A witness for the respondent stated that they had received no complaint under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act. He also stated that they had receive no complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, clarifying that there was no issue with lunch breaks, with coffee breaks or with excessive hours. He noted that the complainant submitted his resignation on 7 December 2022. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Both of the complaint before me relate to penalisation. CA-00054215-003 In the first complaint, it would be necessary for the complainant to have taken a complaint or raised an issue that falls under the Safety, health and Welfare at Work Act and thereafter having been penalised for doing so. No evidence was presented to me that a complaint was taken nor of penalisation taking place thereafter. On the basis of the foregoing, I find that this complaint is not well-founded. CA-00054215-004 In the second complaint, it would be necessary for the complainant to have taken a complaint or raised an issue that falls under the Organisation of Working Time Act and thereafter having been penalised for doing so. No evidence was presented to me that a complaint was taken nor of penalisation taking place thereafter. On the basis of the foregoing, I find that this complaint is not well-founded. |
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-00054215-003 Having regard to all the written and oral submissions made in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00054215-00 Having regard to all the written and oral submissions made in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 16th January2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Safety, Health and Welfare at Work – penalisation – not well founded – Organisation of Working Time Act – penalisation – not well founded. |