ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference:
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Clerical Officer | Railway Service |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00027727-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of contravention - by an employer - of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 (or such other Act as might be referred to in the 2015 Act), made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or dispute. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing as well as any written submissions disclosed in advance of the hearing.
The Complainant herein has referred a matter for adjudication as provided for under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 in circumstances where a Contract of Service has commenced and where the said Employee employed by an Employer is entitled to have been provided (within two months of the commencement of the employment) with a Statement of certain Terms of the employment. The said terms are specified in Section 3 of the 1994 Act and include items such as names, addresses and place of work. There should also be a job title and a description of the nature of the work. The start date and the nature/duration of the Contract should be included in the statement as well as the terms of the remuneration. This statement should be dated and signed with copies retained by both parties.
In circumstances where I consider the complaint to be well founded, I may require a Statement of Terms be provided. In addition, I am entitled to direct a payment of compensation up to the value of four weeks remuneration such that is just and equitable in all the circumstances.
Background:
The Complainant has issued a complaint against his Employer concerning the details of his Contract of Employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant attended with support and I heard his evidence. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Complainant IR Manager attended on behalf of the Company and I heard her submission on behalf of the company. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully considered the matters heard by me at this hearing. The Complainant has been an employee of the Respondent Transport company since 2004. In 2007 he moved to a position of Administrative support in a Dublin based training centre. The Complainant says that in this role he performed tasks under the heading of Railway Infrastructure as well as Railway Undertaking. These, he says, are two distinct areas and that it is unusual that an employee would have tasks in both. He has been in talks with Management for some time trying to get a detailed job description. I understand that a bullet point job description was prepared in-house in August of 2019. The Complainant has been out sick by reason of the workload he says has been inappropriately piled upon him. The Respondent made the case that the complaint before me is utterly misconceived. There is no question but that the Complainant has always been in possession of a statement of his terms of employment. They acknowledge that the Complainant has raised a legitimate Grievance concerning his workload and that this is being dealt with in the normal way, though the Complainant is out sick. The Respondent states that the Complainant has a generic administrative role and that the grade of “Clerical Officer” is appropriately assigned to him in this position. There are all sorts of generic jobs and tasks to be performed by Clerical Officers, and it would not be possible or practical to detail these in the Contract of Employment. Flexibility and adaptation is all part of the requirement placed on the Clerical Officer. There are rarely specifics. The Respondent further indicated that the Complainant was putting forward a re-grading claim and that this is still in the process of being dealt with. It is stalled as the Complainant is out sick. On balance, I am satisfied that the Complainant has (at all material times) been provided with a Statement of the terms of the employment as specified in Section 3 of the 1994 Act. The requirements of the Act have therefore been satisfied. It would not be appropriate for me as an Adjudicator to interpret the Act as imposing any further obligation on the Employer to detail down to the last minutiae what is expected of the employee.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00027727-001 The Complaint herein is not well-founded and therefore must fail. |
Dated: 18th October 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
|