This case involved a cross appeal by the respondent and complainant concerning the Adjudication Officer's decision and the level of compensation awarded. The complainant had complained that the volume of work she was expected to undertake, including recording her activities and engagement with customers, was in excess of the 48 hour weekly statutory maximum set out in statute. She submitted copies of emails sent to and received from her employers before her normal start time and after her normal finish time on numerous occasions. The complainant alleged that she had worked close to 60 hours per week in order to complete her work.

The respondent submitted that the volume of work undertaken by the complainant was in line with that undertaken by other staff members, none of whom worked in excess of the 48 hour maximum. The respondent told the Court that the complainant had been inducted through a comprehensive training programme so that she would be able to discharge her duties within the statutory working week. Her manager alleged that the complainant had adopted a less efficient procedure for completing her administrative tasks than provided and that this may have increased the time she spent on such tasks.

The Court found that the respondent had not kept records of the complainant's working time as required under the Act and therefore the onus of proving compliance with the Act rested with them. The Court felt that the respondent's analysis of the complainant's workload and other requirements was not sufficient to overcome the evidence adduced by the complainant.

The Court stressed that the Act requires that employers shall not permit an employee to work in excess of 48 hours per week, and that it is irrelevant that the work assigned to the complainant did not require her to work in excess of the maximum permitted hours:

"The operative words in section 15(1) of the Act are that an employer shall not “permit” and employee to work in excess of 48 hours in the relevant statutory time period. While the evidence adduced by the Respondent may demonstrate that the work assigned to the Complainant did not require her to work those hours it does not address the question as to whether she worked them in the relevant period."

The Court was satisfied that the respondent was aware of the hours the complainant was working and felt they took no steps to curtail the time she spent working. Accordingly, the Court held that the respondent had permitted the complainant to work in excess of the statutory maximum hours and increased the compensation sum awarded to the complainant to €7,500.
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2018/July/DWT1820.html