Employers must take stock of the working hours they require
Dolly Parton’s song ‘Nine To Five’ was a big hit in the 1980s, and became something of an anthem for office workers in the US.
Today, significantly longer working hours have almost become the norm.
An interesting case in relation to working hours came before the courts recently, and has implications for all workplaces, including farms.
A business executive at a subsidiary of meat processor Kepak has been awarded €7,500 over being required to deal with out-of-hours work emails, including some after midnight, that led to work in excess of 48 hours a week, breaching the Organisation of Working Time Act.
In this particular case, the executive, Ms O’Hara’s contract of employment with Kepak required her to work 40 hours per week, but she maintained that she worked close to 60 hours a week, sometimes dealing with work emails after midnight.
As evidence in support of her claim, she submitted copies of emails that she sent to and/or received from her employers, both before her normal start time and after normal finish time, on numerous occasions over the course of her employment.
According to the Labour Court, the time of sending these emails ranged from 5pm to midnight in most cases, and some were sent after midnight.
In its findings, the Labour Court noted that the Kepak firm did not produce a full file of Ms O’Hara’s emails, and offered no evidence to contradict her evidence in this regard.
The court stated it found Ms O’Hara to be “a credible witness”, and accepted her evidence in this regard.
Accordingly the court found that the Kepak firm was, through Ms O’Hara’s operation of its software and through the emails she sent it, aware of the hours Ms O’Hara was working, and took no steps to curtail the time she spent working.
The court found that the Kepak firm breached the Organisation of Working Time Act, by permitting Ms O’Hara to work beyond 48 hours a week.
The court found that Ms O’Hara’s complaint was well founded.
This case should resonate with all employers, and cause them to take stock of the working hours they require employees to work.
It will serve as a massive wake-up call to employers who expect employees to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Employees are entitled to an uninterrupted 11-hour break between finishing work and starting work the following day.
Employers need to be careful that they do not leave themselves open to claims, when requiring employees to be available 24/7.
It is a health and safety issue.
The key lessons for employers in this case are:
