Andrius Stasaitis v Noonan Services Group Ltd and Another

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeKearns P.
Judgment Date11 April 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] IEHC 199
CourtHigh Court
Date11 April 2014

[2014] IEHC 199

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 311 MCA/2013]
Stasaitis v Noonan Services Group Ltd & Anor

BETWEEN

ANDRIUS STASAITIS
APPELLANT

AND

NOONAN SERVICES GROUP LTD
RESPONDENT

AND

THE LABOUR COURT
NOTICE PARTY

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997 S28

RSC O.84C

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997 S12

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997 S4

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME (GENERAL EXEMPTIONS) REGS 1998 SI 21/1998 REG 3

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME (GENERAL EXEMPTIONS) REGS 1998 SI 21/1998 REG 4

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME (GENERAL EXEMPTIONS) REGS 1998 SI 21/1998 REG 5

EEC DIR 2003/88 ART 4

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997 S4(3)

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997 S6

HUGHES v CORPS OF COMMISSIONAIRES MANAGEMENT LTD 2011 IRLR 100 2011 ICR D2

GALLAGHER & ORS v ALPHA CATERING SERVICES LTD (T/A ALPHA FLIGHT SERVICES) 2005 ICR 673 2005 IRLR 102 2004 EWCA CIV 1559

WORKING TIME REGS 1998 SI 1833/1998 REG 12 (UK)

EEC DIR 93/104 ART 4

AN POST v MONAGHAN & WADE UNREP HEDIGAN 26.8.2013 2013 IEHC 404

MARLEASING SA v LA COMERCIAL INTERNACIONAL DE ALIMENTACION SA 1990 ECR I-4135 1993 BCC 421 1992 1 CMLR 305

SINDICATO DE MEDICOS DE ASISTENCIA PUBLICA v CONSELLERIA DE SANIDAD Y CONSUMO DE LA GENERALIDAD VALENCIANA 2001 AER (EC) 609 2000 ECR I-7963 2001 3 CMLR 42 2001 ICR 1116 2000 IRLR 845

LANDESHAUPTSTADT KIEL v JAEGER 2004 AER (EC) 604 2003 ECR I-8389 2003 3 CMLR 16 2004 ICR 1528 2003 IRLR 804

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997 S11

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997 S13

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997 S6(2)(B)

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997 S6(3)

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997 S6(2)

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997 S6(3)(B)

Employment – Working time – Rest periods – Appellant seeking order declaring that the Labour Court erred in law in deciding that the respondent had complied with s.12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 – Whether respondent"s break arrangements for the applicant came within the terms of permissible derogations under the 1997 Act

Facts: The appellant, Mr Stasaitis, is a Lithuanian national who was employed by the respondents, Noonan Service Group Ltd, as a security officer from 2009 to 2012 at a warehouse facility where vehicles enter and leave the premises. The appellant"s function was to monitor this traffic from a security hut at the entrance, working alone without specific breaks. The employers left it to the appellant to take breaks during periods of inactivity. Kitchen facilities were provided in the hut. The appellant contended that in failing to provide for specific break periods, the respondents were in breach of their statutory obligations, as the requirements of Irish law require an employer to fix the duration of any break. The appellant brought a case before the Rights Commissioner and when this claim was rejected he brought an appeal to the Labour Court in 2013. The Labour Court disallowed the appeal, concluding that his complaint was not well founded. The appellant then sought an order pursuant to s.28 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 declaring that the Labour Court erred in law when declaring that the respondent had complied with the requirements of s.12 of the 1997 Act and was entitled to rely upon the exemptions set out in the Organisation of Working Time (General Exemptions) Regulations 1998. He also sought an order remitting his claim to the Labour court for reconsideration. The appellant submitted that the time during which he was required to be present in the hut could only be classified as working time within domestic legislation and Directive 93/104 (Working Time Directive). He submitted that it was open to the High Court to intervene if it found that the Labour Court had based its decision on an unsustainable finding of fact; the inferences drawn from the presence of cooking equipment were unsustainable as the appellant was at all times required to be available to discharge work duties. The respondents submitted that their arrangements provided more rest for the appellant than those provided by the 1997 Act, citing Hughes v. Corp. of Commissionaires Management Ltd. [2011] I.R.L.R. 100; the Directive must be construed as to limit the scope of derogation to what is necessary.

Held by Kearns J that, having considered the 1997 Act and 1998 Regulations, that any arrangements must satisfy the criteria of equivalence and compensation under the principles of strict construction to be extended to the derogation exempting the employer from strict statutory obligation. Kearns J was satisfied, relying upon An Post v. Monaghan [2013] IEHC 404, that there was no unsustainable finding of fact by the tribunal and that they were entitled to hold that the arrangements provided a sound factual basis for its findings. Kearns J held that they were entitled to find that the arrangements either met the statutory requirements or satisfied a test that they complied with equivalence and compensation requirements. Therefore Kearns J held that the single issue the Court had to determine was whether the Labour court fell into error in its interpretation and construction of the statutory provisions. He examined the classification of the terms "working time", "rest periods", and "breaks" as defined under the Directive and domestic legislation, holding that the employer must ensure that the employee is afforded the compensatory breaks as per the derogations under the Regulations.

Kearns J held that the criteria of equivalence and compensation for breaks were met by the arrangements put in place by the respondent; the requirement to provide compensatory rest periods was deemed to have been complied with due to the provision of kitchen facilities. The appellant"s appeal fails.

Appeal dismissed.

1

JUDGMENT of Kearns P. delivered on the 11th day of April, 2014.

INTRODUCTION
2

In these proceedings the appellant seeks an order pursuant to s.28 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and 0.84C of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, as amended, declaring that the Labour Court erred in law in its written decision dated the 6 th December, 2013, when it determined that the respondent had complied with the requirements of s. 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and was entitled to rely upon the exemptions set out in the Organisation of Working Time (General Exemptions) Regulations, 1998 ( S.I. No. 21 of 1998).

3

Should it be necessary, the appellant also seeks an order remitting his claim against the respondent to the Labour Court for reconsideration.

BACKGROUND FACTS
4

The appellant is a Lithuanian national who was employed by the respondents as a security officer at the premises of DHL Logistics at Airport Park in Dublin, from the 3 rd September, 2009, until the 14 th September, 2012. The site where the appellant worked is a warehouse facility where trucks, vans and other vehicles enter and leave the premises. The appellant's function was to monitor this traffic and for that purpose he worked from a security hut at the entrance. It is common case that he worked in eight hour shifts and that during those shifts he was not permitted to leave the security hut except for the purpose of checking vehicles entering and leaving the premises. He worked alone in performing these duties. It is also common case that his employers did not schedule any specific breaks for the appellant over the course of his shift, but rather left it to the appellant to take breaks during periods of inactivity which occurred during the shift.

5

The appellant was provided with kitchen facilities in the security hut and, while no specific breaks were provided for during his working shift, the respondents assert that there were significant periods of inactivity during the day during which he could take breaks. It is not in dispute but that the appellant availed of such breaks during the time in which he worked for the respondent, but he contends that, in failing to provide for specific break periods, the respondents were in breach of their statutory obligations.

6

The appellant brought a case before the Rights Commissioner, which was heard on the 11 th February, 2003. The Rights Commissioner having rejected the appellant's claim, the appellant brought an appeal to the Labour Court which heard his case on the 23 rd August, 2013.

7

On the 6 th September, 2013, the Labour Court determined as follows:-

"The court notes that the claimant worked for the respondent for three years during which time he made no complaint in relation to the matter now before the court. The court is satisfied as a matter of probability that the claimant was told that he could take breaks during periods of inactivity during the course of his shift. The court is further satisfied that the presence of cooking facilities in the security hut must have made it clear to the claimant (if he was ever in any doubt) that he could avail of breaks while at work. It is not denied that the claimant did in fact take breaks."

8

In these circumstances the court is satisfied that Regulation 5 of the Regulations was complied with in relation to the claimant. The Court is further satisfied that the Regulation 3 of the Regulations was operative in this case and that the claimant's employment came within the exemption provided by that Regulation."

9

Having concluded that the appellant's complaint was "not well founded", the Labour Court disallowed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Rights Commissioner. The matter comes before this Court by way of appeal from that decision.

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS
10

The preamble to the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 states that it is:-

"An Act to provide for the implementation of Directive 93/104/EC of 23 rd November, 1993 of the Council of the European...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Case Number: ADJ-00025536. Workplace Relations Commission
    • Ireland
    • Workplace Relations Commission
    • 29 April 2020
    ...Regarding actual breaks the Respondent cited the Code of Practice on Compensatory Rest Periods and Stasaitis v Noonan Services Group Ltd [2014] IEHC 199. The Respondent submits that it was not feasible for him to employ a second nanny whose sole responsibility was to relieve the Complainant......
  • Case Number: ADJ-00017411. Workplace Relations Commission.
    • United Kingdom
    • Workplace Relations Commission
    • 1 February 2019
    ...work.The Respondent has submitted the following precedent in support of their case: Stasaitis v Noonan Services Group Ltd, the High Court 2014 IEHC 199. Findings and Conclusions:Section 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act places a statutory obligation on employers to ensure that an e......
  • Case Number: ADJ-00017634. Workplace Relations Commission
    • Ireland
    • Workplace Relations Commission
    • 9 October 2019
    ...any material benefit to the employee. The Respondent refers to the recent High Court case of Stasaitis v Noonan Service Group Ltd & Anor [2014] IEHC 199. In the case, Kearns P analysed what these ‘compensatory arrangements’ could be including the following:Taking breaks during periods of in......
  • Case Number: ADJ-00010911. Workplace Relations Commission
    • Ireland
    • Workplace Relations Commission
    • 16 October 2018
    ...12 and 13 of the Act. The 2015 and later, the 2017 ERO applied to the complainant’s employment. Referring to Stasaitis v Noonan Service [2014] IEHC 199, the complainant could avail of compensatory rest arrangements, for example better physical conditions. Referring to the Code of Practice o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • High Court Decision In Relation To Compensatory Rest Breaks At Work
    • Ireland
    • Mondaq Ireland
    • 27 May 2014
    ...the Regulations. The respondent was not obliged to provide for specific rest breaks in order to comply with such obligations. Footnotes [2014] IEHC 199 SI No. 21 of 1998 SI No. 44 of 1998 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist ad......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT