The High Court has rejected an employee’s appeal against a €600 compensation award for breaches of working-time rules, finding no basis to interfere with the Labour Court’s decision.
Mr Justice Birmingham delivered judgment on 21 May 2014 in an appeal under section 28 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. The appellant, Piotr Bryszewski, challenged the amount awarded by the Labour Court, arguing that it was inadequate and failed to meet the European law principles of effectiveness, deterrence and proportionality. He also argued that the Labour Court had wrongly treated some breaches as de minimis.
Bryszewski had worked as a relief driver for Fitzpatricks and Hanleys Limited, trading as Caterway. The High Court said he had been employed by the company since 25 May 2010 and was still employed when the Labour Court decided the case. During the 18 weeks under consideration, he was paid €442.48 net per week.
A Rights Commissioner found that on a relatively small number of occasions Bryszewski had not received the breaks required by section 12 of the Act. The commissioner did not find a breach of section 17, which concerns information about working time, and ordered the company to pay €300 compensation. On appeal, the Labour Court found that the company had no structure guaranteeing specific breaks during the working day. Work interruptions gave Bryszewski some rest, but did not adequately meet the statutory requirements. It also found some section 17 non-compliance, which it described as minor and inconsequential, and increased the award to €600.
The High Court said the award was modest but could not be regarded as nominal in the sense considered in the European Court of Justice’s Von Colson judgment. It noted that the Labour Court was a specialist tribunal well placed to assess the seriousness of individual breaches and the appropriate compensation. The company had also introduced updated employment terms referring to two rest periods and installed a digital clocking system, at a cost of €6,150.
The judge rejected the argument that the Labour Court had applied a minimum-gravity threshold. Despite describing the section 17 breach as minor, the Labour Court had still awarded compensation. The appeal, which was framed as a point-of-law appeal but concerned the amount awarded, failed.