ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052223
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | James Bell | Culmore Logistics Ltd. |
Representatives | Self-represented | Did not attend |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 | CA-00064064-001 | 12/06/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/09/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
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.
On this date I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021. The complainant agreed to proceed in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence may be required.
Oral evidence was presented by the complainant under affirmation.
The complainant was self- represented.
The respondent did not attend.
Background:
The complainant has submitted a complaint under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organization of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012. The complaint had been employed with the respondent as a courier since 1/11/2006. He resigned from his position at the end of July 2024 owing to the failure of the respondent to pay the required employer and employee PAYE contributions. The complainant works 40 hours a week and his gross weekly salary is €800. He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 12/6/2024
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Evidence of the complainant given under affirmation. The complainant worked as a courier, delivering goods for the respondent around the Dublin area until the end of July 2024, when he resigned. The complainant stated that two and a half years previously, the respondent ceased to provide payslips to the complainant. The respondent failed to make the correct PAYE deductions form his salary. When the complainant put that concern to him, the respondent told him that his accountant was responsible for such matters. The complainant showed no awareness of the obligations resting with an employer by virtue of Regulation 18. Rather, the complainant was focused on the failure of the respondent to make the requisite deductions from his salary as opposed to any contraventions on the part of the respondent regarding Regulation 18. As the complaint was unrepresented, and in the context of a remote hearing, I asked the complainant to identify which of the obligations set out in clauses 5-12 of S.I. NO 36/2012 had been breached by the respondent. The complainant confirmed that the respondent had complied with sections 5, 6, 7, 8,9 and 10 of S.I No 36/2012. He was unsure of the respondent’s compliance with clauses 11 and 12.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent though notified of the date and time of the scheduled hearing, failed to attend |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am required to establish if the respondent is in breach of its obligations under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012. I find that the complaint mistakenly believed that as a mobile worker, this Regulation provided him with protections and a possible remedy in respect of the respondent’s failure to make the requisite deductions from his salary. I explained that those concerns were for another forum. The complainant failed to make out his case in relation to breaches under clauses 5-12 of Regulation 18. The complaint is misconceived. I do not find this complaint to be well founded
|
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 decide that this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 12th March 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Misconceived use of statute. |