Sprint Coatings Ltd (Represented by Irish Business and Employers' Confederation) v Tomasz Warzycha (Represented by Blazej Nowak)

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date30 November 2018
Judgment citation (vLex)[2018] 11 JIEC 3005
Docket NumberFULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.DWT1831 ADJ-00007789 CA-00010393-001/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20/21/22/23/24/36/37/38/39/40/41/42/43/44/45/46/47/48/49/50/51/52
Date30 November 2018
CourtLabour Court (Ireland)

Labour Court

FULL RECOMMENDATION

WTC/18/44

DETERMINATION NO.DWT1831

ADJ-00007789 CA-00010393-001/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20/21/22/23/24/36/37/38/39/40/41/42/43/44/45/46/47/48/49/50/51/52

PARTIES:
Sprint Coatings Limited (Represented by Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)
and
Tomasz Warzycha (Represented by Blazej Nowak)
DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Haugh

Employer Member: Ms Connolly

Worker Member: Ms Treacy

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

SUBJECT:
1

1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no. ADj-00007789.

BACKGROUND:
2

2. The Complainant appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 19 June 2018. A Labour Court hearing took place on 24 September 2018. The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:
Background to the Appeal
3

This is Mr Tomasz Warzycha's (‘the Complainant’) appeal from a number of decisions of an Adjudication Officer (that each bear the claim reference number ADJ-00007789 and are dated 13 June 2018) under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (‘the Act’). The Complainant's Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 19 June 2018. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 24 September 2018.

4

The Complaint was employed by Sprint Coatings Limited (‘the Respondent’) (or a predecessor company) between 3 July 2006 and 16 March 2017 on which latter date he was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.

5

Specific Complaints under the Act

6

The Complainant has appealed to the Court from the findings of the Adjudication Officer in respect of alleged breaches of the following sections of the Act: 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22 and 23.

7

Section 11

8

Section 11 of the Act provides:

“An employee shall be entitled to a rest period of not less than 11 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours during which he or she works for his or her employer.”

9

The Complainant referred his complaints in respect of this section on 22 March 2017. It follows that the period encompassed by the complaint commenced on 23 September 2016. In that period, the Complainant submits that there were nine dates on which he did not receive his full eleven-hour break between shifts (Dates supplied to the Court.) The Respondent does not deny this to be the case but in its defence submits that the breaches occurred because of the Complainant's desire to work as much overtime as possible and the Complainant was never directed by the Respondent to breach section 11 of the Act. This Complaint was held to be well-founded by the Adjudication Officer who awarded compensation of €130.00.

10

The Court accepts that the breaches of section 11 as identified by the Complainant occurred. Responsibility for those breaches must be shared between the Parties, in circumstances, where the Complainant was obviously anxious to maximise his opportunities to work overtime. For that reason, the Court upholds the decision of the Adjudication Officer and affirms the award made by her.

11

The Complainant also sought an extension of time in respect of similar breaches that allegedly occurred prior to the six-month period identified above. His application for an extension of time was based on a claim of ignorance of the law. Ignorantia juris non excusat. Neither does ignorance of the law amount to reasonable cause for the purposes of extending the period for bringing a claim under the Act. The application is refused.

12

Section 12

13

Section 12 of the Act provides:

“12. Rests and intervals at work

(1) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes.

(2) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 6 hours without allowing him or her a break of at least 30 minutes; such a break may include the break referred to in subsection (1).

(3) The Minister may by regulations provide, as respects a specified class or classes of employee, that the minimum duration of the break to be allowed to such an employee under subsection (2) shall be more than 30 minutes (but not more than 1 hour).

(4) A break allowed to an employee at the end of the working day shall not be regarded as satisfying the requirement contained in subsection ( 1) or (2).”

14

The Complainant's claim that the Respondent had not complied with section 12 “on a number of occasions each and every week” was referred to the WRC on 22 March 2017. The Court was not given any specific details as to when the alleged breaches occurred. In the circumstances, the Court finds that the Complainant has failed to substantiate that any breaches of section 12 occurred within the timeframe comprehended by this aspect of his complaint. The appeal in relation to section 12 of the Act, therefore, fails. The various decisions of the Adjudication Officer in this regard are upheld.

15

The Complainant also sought an extension of time in respect of similar breaches that allegedly occurred prior to the six-month period comprehended by his principal claim in respect of section 12 of the Act. His application for an extension of time was based on a claim of ignorance of the law. Ignorantia juris non excusat. Neither does ignorance of the law amount to reasonable cause for the purposes of extending the period for bringing a claim under the Act. The application is refused.

16

Section 15

17

Section 15 of the Act provides:

“15. Weekly Working Hours

(1) An employer must not permit an employee to work, in each period of 7 days, more than an average of 48 hours, that is to say an average of 48 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a “reference period”) that does not exceed—

(a) 4 months, or

(b) 6 months—

(i) in the case of an employee employed in an activity referred to in paragraph [3, points (a) to (e)] of Article 17 of the Council Directive, or

(ii) where due to any matter referred to in section 5, it would not be practicable (if a reference period not exceeding 4 months were to apply in relation to the employee) for the employer to comply with this subsection, or

(c) such length of time as, in the case of an employee employed in an activity mentioned in subsection (5), is specified in a collective agreement referred to in that subsection.

18

(2) Subsection (1) shall have effect subject to the Fifth Schedule (which contains...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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