The High Court dismissed a security officer’s appeal over breaks during eight-hour shifts, finding that the arrangements made by his employer met the requirements for compensatory rest under the Organisation of Working Time (General Exemptions) Regulations 1998.
The appellant, Andrius Stasaitis, worked alone in a security hut at a DHL Logistics warehouse facility at Airport Park, Dublin, from September 2009 to September 2012. He monitored vehicles entering and leaving the site and was not permitted to leave the hut except to check vehicles. His employer did not schedule specific breaks, but said he could take them during periods of inactivity. The parties agreed that he took breaks and had access to kitchen facilities in the hut.
Stasaitis argued that he remained at work and available for duties throughout his shift, so inactive periods could not count as breaks. He also submitted that the employer had not fixed the duration of breaks or properly considered his health, safety and comfort as required by Regulation 5. The employer argued that the arrangements provided equivalent compensatory rest and that the Labour Court had made no error of law.
The Labour Court had rejected his complaint and found that the security-worker exemption applied. The High Court considered the appeal on a point of law, with authority to intervene only for an identifiable legal error or an unsustainable factual finding. It found no unsustainable factual finding in the Labour Court’s decision.
The High Court held that the employer’s arrangements satisfied the requirements for equivalent and compensatory rest. It noted that Stasaitis could take breaks during inactivity, use kitchen facilities and rest in an area within the hut, although he could not leave the hut. The court concluded that the compensatory arrangements complied with the statutory requirements and dismissed the appeal. It did not remit the claim to the Labour Court.