Cidos Trading Ltd t/a Banba Toymaster (Represented by Cafferky Solicitors) v Stefan Jennings

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 05 December 2022
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2022] 12 JIEC 0503
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION ADJ-00033733 CA-00044506-002 DETERMINATION NO. RTD224 SECTION 19, EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ROAD TRANSPORT) (ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME OF PERSONS PERFORMING MOBILE ROAD TRANSPORT ACTIVITIES) REGULATIONS, 2012 - 2015
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

PARTIES:

Cidos Trading Ltd t/a Banba Toymaster (Represented by Cafferky Solicitors)

and

Stefan Jennings

FULL RECOMMENDATION

RT/22/4

ADJ-00033733 CA-00044506-002

DETERMINATION NO. RTD224

SECTION 19, EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ROAD TRANSPORT) (ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME OF PERSONS PERFORMING MOBILE ROAD TRANSPORT ACTIVITIES) REGULATIONS, 2012 - 2015

Full Court

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Haugh

Employer Member: Mr Marie

Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00033733 CA-00044506-002.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. This is an appeal on behalf of Cidos Trading Limited T/A Banba Toymaster (‘the Respondent’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00033733/CA-00044506-002, dated 29 July 2022) under the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 (‘the Regulations’). The Respondent's Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 9 September 2022. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 29 November 2022. Mr Stefan Jennings (‘the Complainant’) worked in the Respondent's toy store between 12 October and 8 December 2020. On 7 June 2021, the Complainant referred a complaint under Regulation 18 of the Regulations to the Workplace Relations Commission. The Adjudication Officer decided the complaint under the Regulations was not well-founded.

DETERMINATION:

Preliminary Issue

3 The Respondent's Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 29 November 2022. The Representative for the Respondent submitted that the appeal was received within time as the aforementioned date should be regarded as falling on the forty-second day after the date of the Adjudication Officer's decision. He submitted that, in the alternative and should the Court not hold with him on in that regard, there were exceptional circumstances which justified the late referral of the appeal to the Court. Those, he said, consisted of the following: the Complainant's misunderstanding in relation to how the time for bringing an appeal is calculated; the fact that the appeal was received only one day out of time and that there was no prejudice to the Complainant arising from the delay.

The Law

4 Section 44(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides:

• “(3) Subject to subsection (4), a notice under subsection (2) shall be given to the Labour Court not later than 42 days from the date of the decision concerned.”

5 Subsection (4) of the same section provides:

• “(4) The Labour Court may direct that a notice under subsection (2) may be given to it after the expiration of the period specified in subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the notice was not so given before such expiration due to the existence of exceptional...