Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Declan  Healy

Raymond Carrigy

Representatives

  In person

 In person

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00065466-001

16/08/2024

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-00065497-001

20/08/2024

The within complaints relate to the complainant’s employment as a Tour Bus Driver. The complainant was employed by the respondent from 1st April 2024 to 29th July 2024. The complainant has submitted further complaints relating to his employment (ADJ-00053465) which addresses other alleged breaches of the complainant’s employment rights. The complainant supplied additional information post hearing.

Post hearing submissions

Further information was sought from both parties following the conclusion of the adjudication hearing. As of 26th May 2025, the necessary information has been received in relation to the name of the employer and in relation to other matters relating to weekly rest periods. While the complainant sought a further hearing and while this was scheduled and adjourned, the subsequent response from the respondent on 26th May 2025 has resulted in the required information being provided. This in turn means that it is not necessary to reconvene the hearing.

Name of employer

On the basis of the information supplied, the respondent is correctly named in the complaint form and as cited in this decision.

CA-00065466-001 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991

This complaint relates to the complainant’s notice entitlements in circumstances where the employment was terminated by the respondent on 29th July 2024. The complainant states that he is owed one week’s pay in respect of notice entitlements given his service with the respondent.

CA-00065497-001 – S.I. No 36 of 2012 – Organisation of Working Time Regulations

The complainant asserts that the respondent did not comply with the regulations in relation to the provision of daily and weekly rest to the complainant and in relation to Sections 11 and 12 of the regulations relating to keeping of the appropriate records.

CA-00065466-001 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The respondent stated that the employment was not terminated and that it was the complainant who resigned as he stated he was not interested in a particular type of tour and when the respondent stated he had nothing else to offer, the complainant chose to “finish up”. The respondent argues that as the complainant resigned, he is not entitled to a notice payment.

CA-00065497-001 – S.I. No 36 of 2012 – Organisation of Working Time Regulations

The respondent did not provide any records, tachograph downloads or other information that would have established he had complied with the regulations.

CA-00065466-001 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991

This complaint relates to notice entitlements in circumstances where there is a dispute between the complainant and the respondent in relation to the circumstances that led to the end of the employment relationships.

Both parties attended the online hearing in person and were not represented.

The complainant states he was dismissed, and the respondent states the complainant resigned. I requested the what’s app messages that were exchanged between the parties. The essence of the messages is that the complainant did not want a particular type of tour and stated this to the respondent. In the absence of any other work available, the complainant said that he would “finish up”. The respondent replied on 29th July 2024 noting that there was no other type of tour available and thanked the complainant for “all”. The complainant then thanked the respondent for the clarification and asked that his employment be recorded as having ended on 18th July 2024 which was the last day he had worked for the respondent.

The complainant subsequently sought payment of his notice entitlements on 30th July 2024 as he claims he was dismissed on 29th July 2024.

Having reviewed the what’s app messages, it appears to me that the complainant said he was finishing up in the absence of any tours that were suitable to him. On balance, I do not find that the complainant was dismissed. In response to the respondent’s what’s app message of the 29th July 2024, the complainant did not query the end of the employment as would be expected if an employee was dismissed. In my view, the complainant had earlier confirmed his intention to “finish up” as the respondent did not have any other work that the complainant would accept and in my view, the what’s app messages from the employer on 29th July 2024 confirms the situation. On that basis I find that the complainant resigned and the entitlement to one weeks’ pay in lieu of notice does not arise.

CA-00065497-001 – S.I. No 36 of 2012 – Organisation of Working Time Regulations

This is a complaint alleging that the complainant was not informed by the employer of the provisions of Sections 9, 11 and 12 of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 – S.I. 36 of 2012. This complaint is a duplicate complaint as the breach is addressed in ADJ – 00053465. Accordingly, this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00065466-001 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

For the reasons stated above, I find the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00065497-001 - S.I. No 36 of 2012 – Organisation of Working Time Regulations

The complaint is a duplicate and is not well founded.

Notice entitlements, mobile road transport activities