In the Labour Court case Mater Misericordiae University Hospital v Adrian Stefan (DWT2415)…

In the Labour Court case Mater Misericordiae University Hospital v Adrian Stefan (DWT2415) the Mater Hospital, the Appellant, appealed the decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) Adjudication Officer. As many of our readers may know, a Labour Court hearing is a de novo appeal, which means that they conduct a full re-hearing of all the relevant facts without reference to the previous WRC finding. The Complainant, Mr Adrian Stefan, had submitted a complaint to the WRC under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (“the Act”). The WRC Adjudicator decided the complaint was well-founded and awarded €200 compensation.

Facts: The Complainant contended he was “on call” for the Appellant employer on several occasions when a public holiday fell. He argued that his time “on call” should be regarded as working time within the meaning of the Act and therefore he was entitled to receive the public holiday entitlement applicable to persons who work a public holiday. This entitlement is outlined in s21(1) of the Act and provides for a paid day off on that day, a paid day off within a month of that day, an additional day of annual leave or an additional day’s pay.

It was not disputed that the Complainant was required to be “on call” on the following public holidays during the relevant period of the complaint: 18th March 2022 and 6th June 2022. The Complainant was not ultimately called out on either of these dates. The Appellant submitted that the Complainant was not at work while “on call” on either date and the Complainant was free to carry out his own activities with no constraints. It was also not disputed that the Complainant was afforded a paid day off on each of the two public holidays concerned.

Decision: The Labour Court heard comprehensive submissions from both parties in relation to this matter. The Labour Court considered the definition of working time within the Act as per s2(1):

“Working time” means any time that the employee is –

  1. a) at his or her place of work or at his employer’s disposal, and
  2. b) carrying out or performing the activities or duties of his or her work

The Labour Court also considered the provisions of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (“the Directive”) which was transposed into Irish law by the Act. The Directive provides:

1) ‘Working time’ means any period during which the worker is working, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his activity or duties in accordance with national laws and practise

2) ‘rest period’ means any period which is not working time.

Although the Directive does not address public holiday pay, the Labour Court held that the Directive and the analysis of it by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) relating to periods of stand-by, were persuasive in addressing the matters raised in the appeal before it. The Labour Court observed that the case law of the CJEU establishes that a person can be at work or at rest, and no third state is possible within the meaning of the Directive.

It was the Labour Court’s view that the Complainant had not demonstrated he was in any way constrained in how he chose to spend his time or where he chose to locate himself on the two public holidays in question. He was not at his place of work and did not carry out any work activities other than carrying a mobile phone. The Labour Court concluded the Complainant being on call on those dates does not meet the definition of “working time” within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, the decision of the Adjudication Officer to award compensation in relation to a breach of the Act was set aside.

Takeaway for Employers: This Labour Court decision provides useful insight for employers who require their employees to be “on-call” during public holidays. In this case the employee “on call” during a public holiday was found not to be entitled to benefit as if he worked on the public holiday and then receive an additional paid day off or additional day’s pay. This is because the Labour Court found the Complainant was not constrained in how he spent his time. However, if the Complainant was more constrained or if he did receive a call then this case would likely have had a different outcome. While the WRC Adjudicator originally upheld the complaint, it is notable that she acknowledged in her decision that being on call is not onerous and only awarded €200 as just and equitable compensation in the circumstances.

Link – https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/may/dwt2415.html

Authors – Tara Kelly and Anne O’Connell

More from Anne O'Connell Solicitors