Kepak Convenience Foods Unlimited Company (Represented by M.P Guinness, B.L., Instructed by Caulstown, Solicitors) v Grainne O'Hara

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 19 July 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 7 JIEC 1901
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO. DWT1820 ADJ-00008654 CA-00011534-001
• Date: 19 July 2018

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

WTC/18/18

DETERMINATION NO. DWT1820

ADJ-00008654 CA-00011534-001

PARTIES:

Kepak Convenience Foods Unlimited Company (Represented by M.P Guinness, B.L., Instructed by Caulstown, Solicitors)

and

Grainne O'Hara

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Hayes

Employer Member: Mr Murphy

Worker Member: Mr McCarthy

SECTION 28 (1), ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997

SUBJECT:

1 1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no ADJ-00008654.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 14 March 2018 in accordance with Section 28(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25 April 2018 and 15 June 2018. The following is the Determination of the Court:-

DETERMINATION:

3 This is a cross appeal by Kepak Convenience Foods Unlimited (the Respondent) and Grainne O'Hara (the Complainant) in this case. The Respondent is appealing against the decision in its entirety. The Complainant is appealing against the level of compensation awarded by the Adjudication Officer.

4 The Adjudication Officer, in Decision ref no ADJ-00008654 delivered on 1 February 2018, decided that the Respondent infringed section 15 of the Organisation of Working Time Act in respect of the Complainant by permitting her to work in excess of the statutory maximum number of hours per week permitted under the Act. She ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of €6,240.

5 The Complainant joined the Respondent Company in July 2016 as a Business Development Executive. Her normal place of work was in the Respondent's facility in Blanchards town. Under her contract of employment she was required to work 40 hours per week.

6 She spent a considerable part of her working time travelling between customer sites in the Dublin and Leinster area. She was also required to record her activities and engagement with customers on the Respondent's computerised reporting system.

7 The Complainant's employment ended on 14 April 2017.

The Complainant's Case

8 In her complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission under the Act the Complainant claims that volume of work she was expected to undertake when allied to the reporting structures she was required to complete she worked in excess of 48 hour statutory maximum set out in section 15 of the Act.

9 In support of her complaint she submits copies of emails that she sent to and or received from her employers both before normal start time and after normal finish time on numerous occasions over the course of her employment. These emails range from 17.00 hours to midnight in most cases. However, instances of emails sent after midnight are included in the documents. In addition, the Complainant submits emails that were sent to her employers and responses that were received from her employer before 0800 hours.

10 She submits that she sought a full copy of all of her emails that she states would demonstrate that this pattern was common place. However she states that she was not provided with a copy of those emails by the Respondent.

11 She submits and stated in evidence to the Court that she worked close to 60 hours per week in order to complete the work and associated administrative paper work each week.

The Respondent's Case

12 The Respondent submits that the volume of work undertaken by the Complainant was in line with that...