ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005335
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | A Hotel |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00007463-002 | 05/10/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00007463-003 | 05/10/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/01/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ray Flaherty
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 13 June 2014. He was employed in the role of hotel porter. The Complainant's first complaint relates to the claim that he did not receive a statement of the Terms and Conditions of Employment in writing. (CA-00007463-002) The Complainant's second complaint relates to his claim that he did not receive notification in writing of changes to his terms of employment. (CA-00007463-003) |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
(CA-00007463-002) In his submission, the Complainant stated that on 23 May 2016 he requested a written copy of his Contract of Employment from management. The Complainant further stated that on the following day he received a document which only slightly resembled a contract. In reply to the Respondent's evidence that he did receive a written contract on 24 May 2016, the Complainant confirmed that he was not satisfied with some of the clauses in his contract, such as the start date, which he believed was incorrect. The Complainant further submitted that he sent a letter dated 30 May 2016 to management raising his concerns in this regard and received no reply. The Complainant stated that he only received one copy of the contract and had not been requested to return the signed copy to management. The Complainant stated further in evidence that he had sought assistance from a Trade Union in relation to the issues with his contract. However, the Complainant stated that his attempts to have the matter dealt with by the Trade Union were unsuccessful. (CA-00007463-003) In relation to this complaint, the Complainant stated that he was never notified of any changes to his terms of employment. The Complainant stated that his hours were reduced on a number of occasions. He also stated that he believed this reduction was a form of penalisation because (a) he had requested his contract and (b) because he refused to use the elevator for linen transfer. The Complainant submitted that the first reduction in hours occurred on 24 April 2016. His evidence suggests that the situation was resolved, on that occasion, by other managers and the company accountant. The Complainant stated that the next reduction took place on 16 May 2016, as a result of which he lost 10 hours. The Complainant stated that the situation occurred many times between that date and 13 June 2016, the date the last reduction. The Complainant contended that whenever reduction of his hours occurred, his manager refused to give him a written explanation as to why it was happening. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
(CA-00007463-002) The Respondent stated in evidence that the Complainant was issued with a written statement of Terms of Employment on two occasions and that he confirmed receipt of the first statement which was issued on 24 May 2016. The Respondent also stated that the Complainant did not sign and return his first contract. The Respondent stated that an updated contract was issued to the Complainant by email on 25 October 2016. It was further stated that the Complainant was also given a copy by hand on the same date, together with a copy of the Employee Handbook. The Respondent stated in evidence that to date, the Complainant had not responded to the email or return the signed copy of the contract has requested. (CA-00007463-003) The Complainant stated that they are unaware of any changes to the Complainant's terms and conditions of employment and, as such, are not in a position to respond to the complainant unless they are provided with detailed of the alleged changes. |
Findings and Conclusions:
(CA-00007463-002) It is clear from the evidence presented at the Hearing that the Complainant was provided with a written Contract of Employment. While the Complainant was initially dissatisfied with some elements of the contract, these were administrative in nature and were subsequently rectified. (CA-00007463-003) Having carefully considered all the evidence adduced, it is clear that the changes being referred to by the Complainant with regard to his Terms and Conditions of Employment primarily related to changes in his hours of work. From the evidence presented, both in general in relation to the overall complaints, but more specifically in relation to the issue of changes in his hours of work, I am satisfied that the actions of the Complainant's then line manager played a significant role in the difficulties that arose in the working relationship between the parties. It is noted with interest that since the departure of the said manager the Complainant no longer appears to have the same problems with his line management and his work situation has reverted to a more normal status. The evidence presented would also suggest that failure, by the Respondent, to respond to correspondence sent by the Complainant, may have been as a result of the fact that management at senior level were unaware of the existence of that correspondence. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Having carefully considered all of the evidence adduced and based on the considerations/findings as detailed above, I set out below my decisions in relation to both of the Complainant's complaints: (CA-00007463-002) I am satisfied that the Complainant was issued with written detail of his Terms and Conditions of Employment and that any issues he may have had with regard to administrative inaccuracies contained therein, were rectified by the Respondent as soon as they were brought to their attention. Consequently, the Complainant's complaint in this regard is not upheld. (CA-00007463-003) I am satisfied that in relation to changes in the Complainant's working hours and issues that may have arisen over a short period of time, were as a result of the actions/inactions of his line manager at the time. I am further satisfied that no significant ongoing changes were made to the Complainant's Terms of Employment. Consequently, the Complainant's complaint in this regard is not upheld. |
Dated: 07 June 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ray Flaherty
Key Words:
Terms and Conditions of Employment Reduction in working hours |