ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013574
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Cleaner-Supervisor | Cleaning Co. |
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-00018302-001 | 28/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00018302-002 | 28/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00018302-003 | 28/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00018302-004 | 28/03/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/06/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerard McMahon
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 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 complaints.
Background:
The claimant started work with the respondent as a cleaner on March 3rd 2012. On July 18th 2017 she was made a part-time supervisor. Further to this role revision she was paid €300 on a fortnightly basis (for the supervisory role in one area), in addition to a sum of €180.90 per fortnight (for the cleaning role in another area), giving rise to a gross fortnightly payment of €480.90. She was out on sick leave from late Sept. 2017 to late Nov. 2017. On return, she was advised that the job as a cleaner was still available, but that the job as a supervisor was redundant. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00018302-001: The complainant contends that she was not given a contract of employment reflecting her revised role as a supervisor. CA-00018302-002: The complainant contends that she was not given a contract of employment reflecting her revised role as a supervisor. CA-00018302-003: The complainant contends that on return to work (from sick leave) she was advised that her job as a supervisor no longer existed, but that her job as a cleaner was still available. CA-00018302-004: The complainant contends that when she was made redundant (from the supervisory role) she was not furnished with the requisite minimum notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00018302-001: The respondent explained that the claimant was given a contract in her capacity as a cleaner (incl. the co. handbook) and a verbal contract applied in respect of her supervisory role. CA-00018302-002: The respondent explained that the claimant was given a contract in her capacity as a cleaner (incl. the co. handbook) and a verbal contract applied in respect of her supervisory role. CA-00018302-003: The respondent explained that given the nature of the business jobs ‘come and go’. On the claimant’s return to work the only available role was that of a cleaner. CA-00018302-004: The respondent explained that as the claimant was not made redundant, considerations in respect of minimum notice do not apply. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00018302-001: The relevant enactment provides that an employer must notify the employee of any changes in the particulars of their employment terms within 1 month of the change taking effect. It also provides for redress of up to 4 weeks’ remuneration. CA-00018302-002: This claim is the same as that dealt with above (i.e. CA-00018302-001). CA-00018302-003: The claimant worked as a cleaner for the co. for approx. 5.5 years. She worked as a supervisor for the co. for approx. 10 weeks. Though the role as a cleaner was still available, on medical advice she opted not to continue in this role and requested her P45. Notably, the claimant does not have the requisite 104 weeks’ service in the supervisory role. Furthermore, the claim under the relevant enactment does not provide for ‘reasonable accommodation’ considerations. CA-00018302-004: The claimant’s role as a cleaner was not made redundant, whilst her service as a supervisor does not come under the statutory notice requirement. |
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.
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
CA-00018302-001: The claim is upheld and the respondent shall compensate the claimant with a payment of €961.80. CA-00018302-002: The claim is not upheld. CA-00018302-003: The claim is not upheld. CA-00018302-004: The claim is not upheld. |
Dated: 6.11.18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerard McMahon
Key Words:
Contract Change Notification; Redundancy; Minimum Notice |