Noel Recruitment (Ireland) Ltd v Arturas Glemza (Represented by Richard Grogan & Associates, Solicitors)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 29 January 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 1 JIEC 2908
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.PWD184 ADJ-00006622 CA-00008879-009
• Date: 29 January 2018
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PW/17/45

DETERMINATION NO.PWD184

ADJ-00006622 CA-00008879-009

PARTIES:

Noel Recruitment (Ireland) Limited

and

Arturas Glemza (Represented by Richard Grogan & Associates, Solicitors)

DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell

Employer Member: Mr Murphy

Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No: ADJ-00006622.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision made pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court on 14 December 2017 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:

DETERMINATION:

Introduction

3 This is an appeal by Arturas Glemza (Complainant) against decision ADJ-00006633 of an Adjudication Officer in his complaint against his former employer Noel Recruitment (Ireland) Limited (the Respondent). The complaint was made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act 1991–2015 (the Act). The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was not well founded.

Determination

4 The Complainant was employed by the Respondent between the 24 ^th May 2016 and 22 ^nd January 2017. The Respondent is an Employment Agency who placed the Complainant with one of their clients for the duration of his employment with them. The Complainant was employed on a Permanent Contract. The Complainant is claiming that he is entitled to be paid for the 45 minutes he spends travelling each day when he had to travel between his home and the depot where he worked. The Complainant is relying on the “Tyco” case to argue that this time should be considered working time. This complainant is linked to complaint WTC/17/57. The Court determined in that case that the Complainant's claim to have his travel time to work counted as working time failed.

5 Therefore, the Complainant's appeal cannot succeed and it is dismissed. The decision of the Adjudication officer is affirmed.

6 The Court so decides.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Louise O'Donnell

29 January 2018.______________________

MN Deputy Chairman