ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007550
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Music Teacher | Education Establishment |
Representatives |
| Christine West (solicitor) |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00010128-001 | 08/03/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00010128-002 | 08/03/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00010128-003 | 08/03/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00010128-004 | 08/03/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00010128-005 | 08/03/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/11/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015, and/or Payment of Wages Act 1991, and/or Terms of Employment (Information Act 1994, and/or Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) 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 Claimant has made claims under multiple Acts (see above). |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Claimant outlined his work history with the Respondent which was based on a series of fixed term contracts. He presented a number case where his hours were reduced which led to a reduction/deduction in his pay without his agreement. He was unsuccessful in having this resolved with the Respondent. On a number of occasions, he did not receive his written terms of employment within the specified eight-week period. He also did not receive proper notice of changes to his contracts. He was employed on 2 or more fixed term contracts for a period of four years and is seeking a contract of indefinite duration. The Claimant stated that he was dismissed on 23 May 2016. He had been employed on multiple fixed term contracts since October 2012. He accepted that he recommenced employment with the same Respondent in September 2016. He argued that there had been ongoing employment relationship over a number of years with breaks in between contracts. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The projects on which the Claimant was employed is self-financing. The Respondent raises 550% of the annual budget from fees, grants, donations and support in kind. The other 50% is raised by a partner organisation. The Respondent employs music teachers on a sessional basis to deliver a set of programmes and these do not replace existing providers. The Claimant alleges that a deduction from his wages was made on 26 September 2016. This appears to be based in the differential; between his summer term and the autumn term. As is the case with all music teachers employed by the Respondent, the Claimant was employed on a fixed term contracts, which coincide with three school terms of the school year. Therefore, the hours offered could be subject to change. The objective grounds set out in his contracts for not offering a contract of indefinite duration included the post will not be viable within a reasonable period. It is accepted that hours offered for the autumn contract were less than the summer one. The Respondent did not have additional hours to offer or the means to pay for same. With regard to the claim under the Fixed Term Work Act, section 8 requires the Claimant to be informed of the objective reason why it is fixed term. This was in all his contract as seen above. The claim under the Unfair Dismissals cannot proceed as the complaint was submitted on * March 2017, the date of dismissal is claimed to be 23 May 2016. The expiry date of his fixed term contact for the period 11 January to 23 May 2016. This contact was succeeded by two further contacts. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have considered the submissions made by both parties and have made the following decisions; Under claim CA-128-001, the Payment of Wages Act, I find that the Claimant was paid as per the terms of his then contact, which lead to the variation in hours depending on the school term. I do not fond the claim well founded and it fails. Under CA-128-002 & 003, Terms of Employment (Information) Act, in the 8-week period leading up to the contract, the Claimant received emails and information concerning his hours and other relevant information that was available. The contacts reflected the terms available for each school term. I therefore to not find the claims well founded and they fail. Under CA-128-004, the Fixed term work Act, I am satisfied that all his contacts contained objective grounds within the meaning of section 8 of the Act. The claim fails. Under CA-128-005, the Unfair Dismissals Act, this claim was made on 8 March 2017 and exceeds the six-month time limit required under this Act. Therefore, I have no jurisdiction in this matter. |
Dated: 15 March 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Key Words:
Dismissal, Fixed term contacts, unlawful deductions. |