Paul D Maier is a barrister specialising in the law of work, labour, and employment. Based in Dublin, Ireland, he is a member of the Law Library, having been called to the Bar in 2022.
Paul represents both employers and employees at all levels of the Courts, as well as before the Labour Court and the Workplace Relations Commission. He is a qualified arbitrator and is frequently commissioned to lead independent investigations and disciplinary procedures for organisations. Additionally, he is regularly engaged to provide legal advice and opinions on employment law and related matters.
Paul serves as the Editor of the Irish Employment Law Journal and Employment Law Report, and he is the Treasurer of the Employment Bar Association.
Background:
The Complainant is a plumber for the Respondent, and was on-call for seven days in October 2022. Included in those days was the October public holiday. This on-call arrangement required the Complainant to be available to attend the workplace during this period if required, but did not require the Complainant to remain on the Respondent’s premises or engage in activity on behalf of the Respondent if not called upon. The Complainant accepted that he was not required to work on the public holiday, and that he received a day’s pay in respect of that public holiday despite not having been required to work on it. He also acknowledged that he received a €210 on-call allowance for being on-call for the period of seven days which included the public holiday.
However, the Complainant alleged that because he was on-call on the public holiday, and therefore required to be available to the Respondent on that day, his payment for the day off did not constitute his full public holiday entitlement to a paid “day off” on the day of the public holiday. The Complainant claimed he should receive an additional day’s pay, or an additional day of annual leave, as per the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 to fulfil this entitlement.
In response, the Respondent said it had not breached the legislation, and that the Complainant was not engaged in working time on the public holiday in question. Because the Complainant was not engaged in working time on that day, the Complainant was “off” on the day and that the payment made to the Complainant met the requirements of the legislation.
Outcome:
The Adjudication Officer had regard to the definition of “working time” under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and found that because the complainant was not required to attend the workplace on the day in question, he was not working and therefore was not entitled to any further entitlements in respect of the public holiday. Due to this finding, the Adjudication Officer found the Complainant’s complaint not well-founded.
Practical Guidance for Employers:
There is no intermediate status between “working” and “resting” under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, and an employer should be sure of the category their employees fall under when they use an “on-call” arrangement.
The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/february/adj-00044081.html
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial