Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Clerical Officer

A Hospital

Representatives

Lars Asmussen BL instructed by Ormonde Solicitors

Sophie Crosbie, Regional Director IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00027526-001

05/04/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

CA-00027526-002

05/04/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00027526-003

05/04/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 (withdrawn at hearing)

CA-00027526-004

05/04/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

CA-00027526-005

05/04/2019

The Complainant was employed as a Clerical Officer by the Respondent Hospital from 13 March 2017 until 22 February 2019. She worked a 37-hr week in return for an annual salary of €31 623 basic and an additional night duty premium of €6,000 per annum.

The complaints lodged by the complainant on 5 April 2019 were not particularised and all promised further submission but did not have any primary content. This runs far short of best practice and on 24 July 2019, in preparation for a hearing of this case, I wrote to the complainants Solicitors seeking an outline submission.

The Complainant was represented by Counsel and furnished a written submission to particularise the claims on 7 August in advance of the hearing. This was copied to the Respondent who had understandably raised pertinent concerns in the face of a non-particularised complaint form.

The Complainant raised the following complaints:

1 That she had been unfairly dismissed.

2 That she had been penalised or threatened with penalisation for having made a protected disclosure

3 That she had been penalised for complying with or making a complaint under Safety health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005

4 That the respondent had failed to offer a written statement setting out the objective grounds justifying the renewal of a fixed term contract and the failure to offer a contract of indefinite duration.

An earlier claim CA -00027526-004 on less favourable treatment in accordance with the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act, 2003 was withdrawn at hearing.

The Complainant was the sole witness in her case.

The Respondent operates a large Hospital and has denied all claims. The Respondent was represented by IBEC and presented extensive written submissions. The Respondent presented 4 witnesses.

The Respondent had suggested presenting a 5th witness but this person was unable to attend the second day of hearing due to a family commitment. The Respondent indicated that the person could make themselves available at 8 pm that evening. I had explained to the parties that I wished to conclude the case that day and to that end had time tabled the start of hearing earlier. At that moment, it seemed unlikely that the case would still be running at that time and the 5th witness was not presented. I offered to accept a written submission from her. The hearing did in fact run until 8pm. I subsequently received an email thread relating to the proposed 5th witness in relation to internal recruitment. While not probative, it was informative.

The Respondent made a supplementary submission on Mitigation, Loss, advertised posts and the Mediation Agreement which was copied to the Complainants representative. This was received by the WRC on November 1, 2019 and did not prompt a response from the Complainant.

The Respondent operates a large Hospital. The Respondent representative confirmed that the Complainant was first hired in March 2017, as a Clerical Officer on a specified purpose basis to cover permanent staff on leave.

Her employment ended on expiration of her fixed term contract on 22 February 2019.

CA -00027526-001 Unfair Dismissal Preliminary Issue

The Respondent raised a Preliminary Issue in relation to the claim for Unfair Dismissal and submitted that the complainant was precluded from advancing her claim due to the overarching application of Section 2(2)(b) of the Act

“Your employment with the Organisation will commence on March 13, 2017. Your employment is for the following reason: to cover leave. This contract will terminate once the specified work has been completed and the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2007 will not apply to such termination”.

The Respondent operated a Centralised Head Count process on back filling permanent vacancies and this process did not sanction any permanent replacement headcount during the complainants first year of employment.

By then, the Respondent had identified problems with the complainant’s performance and she was informed that she was to receive a three-month contract extension as permanency was not a viable option for her at that time. However, this was not actioned.

The Respondent then issued a 6-month contract from 23 April 2018 to 22 October 2018, which was signed by both parties.

This is a fixed term contract of employment. Your employment by the organisation shall commence on 23 April 2018 and it will terminate on 22 October 2018.

The Contract reflected that the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 would not apply to the termination of this contract where such termination is by reason only of the expiry of this fixed term.

This contract was followed by a 4-month extension, signed by both parties and covered the period:

October 2018 – February 22, 2019.

This extension was justified as the complainant was mid-way through a Performance Improvement Plan and a business need had been identified for additional cover for seasonal surge in activity.

The Complainants contract expired and was not renewed. The Respondent argued that the provisions of the Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977-2017 did not apply by reason of the application of S. 2(2)(b) of the Act.

Each of the fixed term contracts were:

1. Entered freely by the parties
2. Signed by both parties
3. Renewals were justified by valid business reasons and were not entered for the purposes of avoiding liability under the Act.

Substantive Case;

The Respondent rejected the claim for Unfair Dismissal and submitted that the complainant had been the topic of some performance concerns at the Respondents Hospital. While there had been an improvement April to July 2018, a period off Coaching during August 2018 had revealed a high rate of error by the complainant. What followed was an intensive Performance Improvement plan.

It was the Respondent case that the Hospital did not have a head count needed for the complainant’s position post February 2019. The Complainant had never been guaranteed permanency.

The Respondent identified that a single competition for a permanent vacancy existed in early January 2019. Both Temporary staffs working in the Dept applied and the complainant was unsuccessful.

The Complainant had raised a complaint of Bullying and Harassment during her PIP and this had been addressed pro-actively in accordance with company procedures. By December 4, Agreement had been reached via Mediation. This was reviewed, and no issues arose.

The Complainant had not raised a grievance regarding her tenure, nor had she applied for any of the other like positions available around the Hospital.

In response to the Complainants Preliminary Points. the Respondent argued that the complainant was excluded from coverage under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. In addition, the complainant had not become entitled to a contract of indefinite duration and any such assertion was misguide in law and a misapplication of law as the provisions of S. 2(2) (b) of the Unfair Dismissals Cat 1977 as amended predated the provisions of the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act, 2003. In this the Respondent relied on the EAT case of David Dawson and Telefonica 02 Ireland ltd UD 672/2012and the latter-day case of HSE v Sallam.

The Respondent submitted that the July 2018 was the presiding contract and the complainant was precluded by the exclusions contained in Section 2(2) (b) of the Act.

Evidence of Ms A, Line Manager

Ms A had responsibility for 36 largely permanent employees, 24 of whom were full time. It was a predominantly female workforce and covered 24/7 rotation. Vacancies at permanent level were not the norm. Ms A had been a manager for 9 years.

Ms A submitted some detail on the workings of the Head Count Management process.

Issues arose concerning the complainant, where Ms A was constantly getting phone calls that the same person, i.e. the complainant was responsible for mistakes.

Ms A had endeavoured to provide strategic feedback to the complainant where “she sandwiched the bad and good” but the process was weighed down with negatives and it was very difficult task to undertake.

Ms A recalled the March 2018 review and disputed that she was angry with the complainant. She really wanted to “get her over the line” and was upset that the complainant had not discussed things or challenged her contemporaneously.

Ms A recalled the Friday morning meeting July 6 in her office between 7 am and 8 am. She had the contract of 6 months duration. she did not recall saying “let’s get this over “She did however feel that the complainant needed more experience to address the noted lack of consistency in her performance. It was the level of the mistakes which concerned her the most.

The PIP was instigated as a genuine attempt to affect an improved performance. Bullying and Harassment had not been discussed by the complainant.

Ms A confirmed that the Mediation process had assisted “better communication “and she had not been requested to revisit.

Ms A submitted that she was very upset by the complainant’s lack of taking responsibility and she had begun to question herself on it.

During cross examination, Ms A confirmed her experience and added that she didn’t really deal with Fixed Term Contracts. She may have dealt with 10-15 over her 9 years. These were managed by HR.

Ms A went over the hospital imperative to constrain administrative headcount and the way “approval to fill posts “evolved via a business case. There was a perpetual embargo on hiring.

Ms A denied that the complainant had been punished, she had tried to be “nicer to her “

Ms A went out to clarify the recruitment process and confirmed that scores were not issued to candidates.

She recalled the July 2017 competition where she had been on the interview panel. She had no idea why the complainant was not considered for the position, she had presumed that she had not applied. 6 candidates were interviewed, Ms A understood that these were external candidates. No internal panel existed.

Ms A disputed that the complainant’s reference to bullying and harassment affected the complainant’s safety and health. She did not recall the complainant breaking down in relation to the performance reviews and re-affirmed that the complainant’s performance had disapproved as evidenced in the performance reviews. The Complainant was invited to complete her responses.

Ms A understood that she had supported the complainant, but there were issues with her inconsistent performance which she was bound to manage. The performance review process had intensified into a corrective action plan with the complainant’s agreement.

Ms A recalled that Ms B had determined that the complainant’s submissions at 17 October meeting did not constitute bullying and harassment. She understood that communication improved post mediation.

Ms A contended that she had treated the complainant respectfully, she had called her during her last period of sick leave, but she did not take the call.

Ms A had no knowledge of an automatic conversion process to permanency.

Evidence of Ms B, Human Resource

Ms B has 20 years’ experience in Human Resources and was involved in the performance improvement plan which had been informed by several the complainant’s performance reviews.

She had no recollection of earlier difficulties between the complainant and Ms A, but she did recall the complainant stating that she was not happy with her performance review reports and was apprehensive in signing these. Ms B submitted that the complainant was not placed under pressure to sign the reports.

Ms B confirmed that the PIP process was extended and was accompanied by lengthy minutes as the complainant repeatedly disputed the detail.

Ms B went through the Head Count process which led to contract renewals. A four-month contract was issued in October 2018, improvements had been noted in the complainant’s performance and a busy season was anticipated where increased cover was sanctioned. The complainant was not placed under pressure to sign and did not dispute the purpose of this renewal.

In October 2018, during the PIP meeting, and out of the blue, the complainant mentioned bullying and harassment and mentioned that Ms A “keeps pointing out my mistakes” Ms B disputed that she had leaned over and shouted at the complainant and submitted that she may have sounded exasperated.

In giving a background to the core functions of Clerical services at the hospital, she confirmed that Advertisements for positions circulated broadly via notice board and intranet. She confirmed that no permanent appointments had followed the July 2017 appointment. Temporary positions had been available. She also detailed a converted post in a speciality area. She stressed that the months of February – May are habitually quiet as leave is not a consideration.

Ms B submitted that the PIP remained a viable option for the complainant if she wanted to return to it. Improvements had followed, and this was demonstrated in shorter minutes.

Ms B reaffirmed that she believed that the Respondent had done their best to help the complainant. She told the hearing that the complainant had a prior awareness that her job could end if she was unsuccessful at the January 2019 competition. She disputed that the complainant had been ruled out of the running and disputed that a named Supervisor and the successful candidate were friends.

During cross examination,

Ms B disputed that a delay in furnishing minutes of the PIP meetings was deliberate. She explained that the complainant was not considered for a converted post as a Significant Business case would need to preface this and the Respondent would have to be satisfied that performance and attendance were up to speed. it was not possible to generate a second permanent post in January 2019.

Ms C, Human Resources

Ms C had 16 years’ experience in HR and was a qualified Mediator. Ms C had attended the PIP meetings as Note Taker, where the overall intention was performance improvement. The minutes she compiled reflected what was agreed but were ultimately disputed which she found frustrating.

Ms C recalled that she had requested the complainant to formalise her complaint on October 17.

She had explained that the respondent wanted the complainant to stay on and explained the processes of Mediation Investigation in terms of dealing with the allegations of bullying and harassment. She stressed that the decision to progress remained with the complainant.

The Complainant elected for Mediation and Ms C took on this role as an impartial mediator on 22 November 2018. This was successful, and feedback was positive. Ms C adopted an open, truthful and honest mediation and believed that the process had been worthwhile.

The letter of Agreement permitted a 3-week review, but she was not requested to re-open the process and had no other involvement.

During cross examination,

Ms C confirmed that she had adjourned the Oct 17 on foot of the complainants verbalised allegations of bullying and harassment and denied that the complainant was compelled to elect for a Mediation.

Ms C knew that the accuracy of minutes was a persistent issue and rectified them. These were agreed. The Complainant did not want to re-engage with PIP and the process was placed on hold in favour of her references to bullying and harassment.

Ms C disputed that she was compromised by her earlier involvement in PIP process and maintained that she was independent and impartial. Ms C distinguished the Dignity at Work issues from the PIP following the meeting of Oct 17.

Evidence of Mr A, Human Resources

Mr A holds responsibility in Human Resources for the business. He is supported by 2 Human Resource Practitioners and a HR Administrator (the proposed 5th witness)

The Clerical staff constituted 10% of Head Count across the base and are considered Core Front Line staff, the majority of whom are long servers.

Mr A gave a comprehensive account of the role played by Clerical staff at the fast-paced Hospital. He explained the cautious approach adopted at the hospital in relation to filling vacancies through the Head Count process as “fill one and then thread water for a bit longer “. A critical need had to preface a decision to fill a post.

He recalled that he had met the claimant once accompanied by a Union Rep regarding her impending end of contract. He explained the Selection process was based on competency-based framework. He was not directly involved in selection.

The Complainant was terminated in her position as there was no role there at the time. The Complainant had not appealed her interview result, which is permitted through the grievance procedure.

During cross examination,

Mr A submitted that the business did not have the scope to retain the complainant post February 2019. Mr A went on to say that from his perspective as Lead Hr, the Respondent had “bent over backwards “to assist the complainant during her employment, through PIP and through the Dignity at Work Issue. The Complainant had refused Occupational health Support and EAP backup. The Hospital had also provided a reference when she requested it.

CA -00027526-002 Penalisation/Protected Disclosure

The Respondent exhibited the Operational Policy for Protected Disclosures. The Respondent submitted that the complainant had not made a protected disclosure and the claim was speculative.

CA-00027526-003 Penalisation/ Safety health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005

The Respondent rejected this claim and submitted that no details of alleged penalisation had been presented,

The Respondent opened case law from Toni and Guy Blackrock ltd V O Neill HSD 095 at the Labour Court. The Respondent had sought to manage the complainant’s performance in line with its mission statement.

The Respondent submitted that the complainant was prohibited in advancing claims under Unfair Dismissal Legislation and Safety Health and Welfare at Work legislation.

CA-00027526-005 Written Statement, Protection of Employees (fixed Term Work) Act 2003.

The Respondent pointed to the lack of particulars to the complaint submitted.

In disputing the claim and relying on Salam, the Respondent submitted that just because objective grounds of renewal were not given, this does not mean that they do not exist.

Section 8 is not a provision attracting compensation and the complaint is misguided in law.

The Respondent confirmed that the complainant received a renewal in her contract to cover a specific period of leave.

The Complainant was employed as a Clerical Officer from 13 March 2017 to 22 February 2019 at the Respondent Hospital. She worked a 37-hr week in return for an annual salary of €31 623 basic and an additional night duty premium of €6,000 per annum.

Preliminary Issue:

Counsel for the Complainant introduced the history of the contract formation in this case.

March 13, 2017   Co Signed Job description

March 8, 2017 respondent signed Contract 1 (Specified Purpose Contract)

April 18, 2017 complainant signed contract 1

4 July 2018 Respondent issued a 6-month fixed term contract

29 July 2018 Complainant signed contract no 2

1 October 2018 Contract No 2 extended from 22 October 2018 to 22 February 2019, continuity of back service assured.

11 October 2018 Complainant signed acceptance.

The Complainants representative contended that the complainant’s employment ought to be regarded as a contract of indefinite duration from 22 October 2018. He argued that the extension afforded to the second contract was in breach of the fixed term legislation and in accordance with Section 12 should be deemed null and void. In response to the Respondent Preliminary Issue, he went on to argue that the provisions of the exclusion ions permitted in Section 2(2) (b) of the Unfair Dismissals legislation could not be applied in a contract , where the complainant was not on full notice of the contents of the agreement .This contract of indefinite duration is covered by the Unfair Dismissals Act and the complainant should be heard in that vein .

Substantive Case:

The first contract of employment was signed by the complainant on 18 April 2017. The Complainant understood that she was to cover Maternity Leave but was not informed why her employment was fixed term/ specified purpose in nature. The person she understood she replaced left the Hospital in November 2017.

A second contract followed and was signed by her on 29 July 2018. On 1 October 2018, this was extended for a 4-month period. The Complainant signed this extended contract on 11 October 2018

I hereby accept this offer to extend this contract for a period to 22 February 2019. I confirm that I regard this contract, extended in this way, to be a temporary contract for the complete period from 13 March 2017 -February 22, 2019.

The Complainants representative submitted that the Respondent was not legally entitled to extend the employment on a fixed term basis and this constituted a breach of the Protection of Fixed Term Worker Legislation.

Counsel argued that the complainant should be considered as having possessed a contract of indefinite duration and any attempt to dismiss her would fall foul of the Unfair Dismissals Legislation. The Complainant did not accept that her role came to a natural end and she contended that she had been terminated because of raising issues of bullying from March 2018 onwards in the Organisation.

Counsel submitted that the complainant had initially been valued in her work and was endorsed in that performance in July 2017 when inquiring about a permanent vacancy in July 2017, she was advised that “she was going nowhere “and her Manager was happy with her.

She was troubled when she discovered two new hires in her Department, one temporary and one permanent. The Complainants application had not been processed. The Complainant observed that she had been treated inconsistently with the temporary worker who was hired and rehired and eventually appointed to the permanent post spoken about by the Respondent in January 2019.

The Complainants employment was subject to quarterly job reviews which were without incident until the 12-month mark, where she was picked up on a poor judgement call on blood collection. The Complainant had nothing to do with the blood collection and had merely provided Desk cover. Her Line Manager was totally dissatisfied with her and blamed her for this. The Complainant did not query this as she feared a disciplinary sanction. She did raise the matter at a following review and could not sign the record which she believed to be inaccurate.

Things changed for the complainant after this and she felt isolated and disrespected. She maintained that she had been singled out and treated differently in her Managers interaction with her. She observes that the Manager was hypervigilant around her and in September 2018, the Manager shouted at her. The Complainant found this confusing as she had received positive feedback from patients and their families.

On September 20, 2018 the Complainant was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan which was a targeted plan. The Complainant was not pleased and understood that she had been penalised for raising issues of concern.

On October 15, 2018, the complainant was party to an allegation of error by her Manager. It was not her error. She decided to raise a grievance regarding her bullying and harassment. She was talked out of a formal grievance and settled for a two-party process with the line Manger hosted by Human Resources. The Complainant began to fear for her job again.

On October 17, the complainant attended her final performance review. This time she was accompanied by a colleague. The Complainant raised the live issue of bullying and harassment and became upset which her submissions were rejected. The Complainant was upset and was apprehensive that her permanency was stalled when she received a 4-month extension to the earlier contract.

The Complainant was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. She became stressed at the thought of work. She commenced sick leave

On November 7, Human Resources hosted a meeting to address the altercation of October 15, 2018. The Complainant decided to enter Mediation to seek to resolve matters. She reported to a different manager on her return to work.

On 14 January 2019, the complainant was informed by HR that approval had issued to recruit another permanent employee to the admission team. This unsettled the complainant as she did not expect to have to interview, she understood that she would be made permanent as the headcount rose. The Complainant suspected her live complaints and PIP would prejudice her but was pleased to hear that she was deemed eligible to compete at interview.

However, on 24 January, the complainant learned that she had been unsuccessful in this role and had been overtaken by a more junior colleague. She felt excluded by her Manager in the aftermath of this news as she had not commented on the outcome.

The Complainant was diagnosed with migraine and stress on 29 January and resumed sick leave. she did not return to work. The Complainant had made subsequent applications for jobs ta he respondent hospital but had not been shortlisted.

The Complainant has sought the redress option of re-instatement as she had not received a proper chance to address the bullying behaviour she experienced while working there. The informal process did not crystallise from an informal chat to a real mediation.

The Complainant representative determined that the dismissal on February 22, 2019 was unfair.

Evidence of the Complainant:   

The Complainant enjoyed her work as a Clerical Officer. It was a busy a role that traversed day and night shift. She submitted that she had undertaken some training on commencement, but after 3 days she was self-sufficient and questioned when needed. She commenced night work post 3 nights training. She covered switchboard. The Complainant understood that she had been recruited to cover a maternity leave locum who was due to resume by November 2017.

The Complainant got on well and this was re-enforced in July 2017 when she expressed an interest in a job application external to the Dept she worked in. She sought to apply but did not get an interview or any reason why she was not entertained in the application. Her Line Manager endorsed her performance and she formed the view that she was safe there.

One Colleague became permanent during 2018 and a second in January 2019.

The Complainant undertook training in the emergency phone and understood this had gone ok in August 2017.

An issue had arisen regarding a blood collection in September 2017, where she was accused of an action which in fact was not related to her, but to another employee.

Things seemed to change for her after 12 months in the job, her line Manager blamed her as a matter of course for detected errors and omission which the complainant may not have been party to. She found herself receiving one to one training at switchboard with an operator adjacent. Nobody else had to do this. She was troubled when her line Manager, Ms A told her that her judgement was poor. The Complainant was humiliated.

The Complainant began to fear losing her job as Ms A demonstrated anger towards her and she did not find her approachable.

The Complainant told the hearing that she was afraid to make a complaint, yet she accepted the PIP in September 2018 was to run until things were resolved.

The Complainant was confused when issues arose, and despite her remoteness to these issues, she believed she was blamed for the issues which were habitually raised with her. These were not presented as a catalogued chronology.

The Complainant referred to a situation which arose on Oct 15, where her identity was mistaken in terms of drawing a map. she was confronted by Ms A and a male colleague and accused of “going off her game” the Complainant could not understand why she was singled out on the word of another colleague. Nobody apologised for the mistake.

A follow-on meeting with HR caused her to feel further isolated.

The Complainant submitted that she had submitted that her line Manager was associated with her complaint of bullying and harassment but was not heard on this. She recalled a follow-on meeting with Ms A and Hr where she went in seeking access to a formal procedure, but came out after 1 hour, agreeing to Mediation. She hoped that things were going to improve but had misgivings. She was not provided with minutes of these discussions.

She fully expected that Mediation was to be conducted by an external party and was surprised when the Mediation was hosted by Human Resources. She felt pressurised to agree the Mediation Agreement.

The Complainant learned that the Hospital had an opportunity to give some permanent contracts but was devastated that she was expected to apply. At first, she thought that she would be ineligible in the face of the existent PIP, however, Ms A reassured her that she was eligible. She submitted that the interviews were held more promptly that other jobs she had seen, which were held 3 weeks post Advertisement. This interview was held 4 days post the closing date. She thought she had to apply or lose her job.

The Complainant confirmed that she was not confident going in to the interview.   The outcome was shared with her after the successful candidate, a colleague who was more junior to her. The Complainant expressed a strong view that her lack of success at interview was attribute to her complaints and she believed that she was being punished. The Complainant struggled after that as she returned to her workplace and heard Ms A laughing. She took this very personally and felt alone and unsupported. She equally felt that she could not be near others as she could not speak to them.

The following Monday, Ms A inquired as to her weekend and laughed into her face. the Complainant acquired migraine causing her to visit her GP the next day. She was advised not to return to work “under any circumstances” and commenced on sick leave until February 22 without receiving any contact from the hospital.

The Complainant subsisted on illness benefit January to May 2019 and submitted some evidence of loss and mitigation, applied for 135 jobs, 7 interviews, joined 4 Agencies and was due to commence a month-long contract in a Hospital setting the next day. Her loss was projected at €42,624.

The Complainant submitted that her experience at work had had a devastating effect on her life. She had developed a social anxiety which caused her to withdraw from her previous activities with the effect that it had ruined her life.

During cross examination, the complainant confirmed that she had not applied for any other jobs in the hospital prior to July 2017. On that occasion, she had sent an email of expression of interest along with her CV. When she saw that someone had received permanent post, she followed it up some 2 months later, but did not receive an explanation.

The Complainant confirmed that most of her work was Administrative and added that she felt compelled to sign the performance reviews. She fully accepted that the Respondent had an issue with her performance, but she had not been met with concrete catalogued examples. She was very troubled by this approached as she believed that she was being unfairly targeted to the point where she asked if something in her personal life was causing the difficulties?

The Complainant confirmed that she had been offered EAP and Occupational Health but had declined both. She had not been aware that the “blood issue “was a pressing matter for the hospital as it was part of a Clinical trial.

She explained that she had seen corrective action taken by way of a general email notification to everyone. She approved of this means, however, her issues were not managed in the same way, she was called into the office and this made her uncomfortable as she had not seen others treated in this way.

The Respondent representative asked her to consider that the Respondent surely had a right to manage performance and the complainant partly agreed. She clarified that she was afraid at work and confirmed that she had told the performance reviews that she could approach her Line Manager, she felt the need to tell them what they wanted to hear. She saw mediation as a tick box exercise.

The Complainant confirmed that she was only interested in permanent work and had not explored further temporary options. She had not appealed the interview. She was certain that there were vacancies at the hospital.

The Complainant denied that her recollection of events could be affected by her emotional state. She was certain that Ms A laughed at her after her interview as she was laughing when no one else was around.

CA -00027526-002 Penalisation/Protected Disclosure

The Complainant confirmed that she had not made a Protected Disclosure.

CA-00027526-003 Penalisation/ Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005

The Complainant submitted that she had been penalised for raising interpersonal difficulties in October 2018. This penalisation manifested in her dismissal.

CA-00027526-005 Written Statement, Protection of Employees (fixed Term Work) Act 2003.

Counsel for the complainant submitted that the letter dated October 1, 2018 purported to extend the previous fixed term contract for a further 4 months to “cover the ongoing needs of the hospital”

This did not comply with the requirements of Section 8 of the Act as it did not address the reasons why a Contract of indefinite duration had not been issued.

I have taken some time to consider the facts of this case. I have reflected on the evidence adduced along with the written submissions.

Preliminary Issue 1

I wish to commence with a Preliminary Issue of my own, that of the lack of on the complaint form dated 5 April 2019. The Complaints were submitted 6-week time frame post the complainants expiration of contract. The Submission detailing some of the of the complaint was not lodged until August 7, one week before the hearing.  

From my point of view as an Adjudicator, I found the lack of to be most unhelpful. I appreciate that the Respondent also raised this as an issue and it spilled over into the core of the hearing and was a cause of ongoing irritation between the parties throughout both days of hearing. For my part, the key part of the case is oral evidence and I believe that I recorded this in full. Both parties were permitted to cross examine. However, I found that the lack of on the claim form resulted in a high level of provision of details from both parties which were not always directly relevant to the claims.

Preliminary Issue 2

Counsel for the Complainant submitted that Section 12 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act, 2003 rendered the second contract issued in July 2018 void. This ultimate extension in October 2018 was not committed to a new contract and failed to satisfy the objective grounds necessary for renewal. The clause contained in the extension conflicted with the provisions of Section 8 of the Act.

The Respondent completely rejected that position and submitted that the complainant developed performance issues shortly after her first year of employment. These were addressed by performance review and significant effort went into building the complainant up to being considered for a permanent appointment, if such became available through the Head Count process. This process was paused pending the evolution of her oral complaint of bullying and harassment first raised on 17 October. The extension of 4 months was a legitimate use of a contractual extension in accordance with the Act. The Complainant was actively encouraged to compete for a permanent position in January 2019.

The Respondent relied on HSE V Sallam at the High Court, [2014] IEHC 298

Voidance of certain provisions.

12.—Save as expressly provided otherwise in this Act, a provision in an agreement (whether a contract of employment or not and whether made before or after the commencement of the provision concerned of this Act) shall be void insofar as it purports to exclude or limit the application of, or is inconsistent with, any provision of the Act.

I have carefully considered the arguments raised by both parties on this point. Section 2 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Act) 2003 defines a fixed term employee as having a contract entered into directly with an employer where the end of the contract of employment concerned is determined by an objective condition such as arriving at a specific date, completing a specific task or the occurrence of a specific event

I am satisfied that the complainant is a Fixed Term Worker for the purposes of the Act

Section 2 goes on to clarify that a “renewal “includes extension and cognate words shall be read accordingly.

On 20 September 2018, the Complainant was advised in the process of a Performance Improvement plan formation that the Respondent was not “comfortable supporting a permanent contract as there has been insufficient time to demonstrate all improvements but are prepared to continue working through the PIP process “.

A 4-month fixed term extension had been granted and was to be placed as an addendum to the complainant’s contract. Headcount was still a factor. The Complainant accepted this extension some 10 days later.

I saw this as an objectively justified reason to ground a contract extension and I did not consider that the contract was void as a result. In Sallam, Baker J, in the High Court found that in the absence of a contract renewal to which 9(1) and 9(2) applied, the provision of S.9(3) do not apply and a contract of indefinite duration had not sprung into being. The contract had short of two years’ service at the time of her termination of employment.  

I have not established the application of Section 12   here.

Preliminary Argument 3. Section 2(2) (b) Exclusion Clause

The Respondent submitted that the provisions of Section 2(2) (b) of the Unfair Dismissals Act were incorporated in Contract no 2 signed by the Complainant on 29 July 2018.

This is a fixed term contract of employment and therefore the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2007 will not apply to the termination of this contract where such termination is by reason only of the expiry of this fixed term

The Respondent representative submitted that the complainant was prohibited and thus excluded from advancing a case for Unfair Dismissal against this clause. The Complainant representative disagreed and pointed to the contractual variances in Contract 1, 2017 and Contract 2 ,2018 and submitted that the complainant had not appreciated these variances on signing and could not be bound by them.

The Complainant worked continuously from March 13 to February 22,2019, apart from two periods of sick leave. She had some 23 months service on her last day, February 22, 2019. I have taken some time to analyse the wording of these contracts and in so doing, I am mindful of the deliberations of the Labour Court in Irish Museum of Modern Art V Stanley FTD 146

The defining characteristic of a fixed term contract or fixed term employment is that it is determined by an objective condition which is identifiable without reference to the view or perception or intervention of either party to the contract

The Area of Fixed Term work is extremely complex, and the 1999 Framework Agreement concluded by ETUCC, UNICE and CEEP is an important foundation document in seeking to understand the objectives pursued by the Council Directive 1999/70.

In the instant case, the first contract was a specified purpose contract to “cover leave “The Contract was to terminate once the specified work had been completed. Both parties agreed that the complainant was employed to cover an employee who officially left the service post maternity leave in November 2017. The Respondent detailed the intricacies of Head count and resultant work force planning which did not sanction approval to fill the leavers post on a permanent basis.

They confirmed that most employees in Clerical area had permanent status. This is an important consideration base line consideration, given the emphasis on anti-avoidant provisions contained in the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term) 2003.

From my analysis, I established that the first contract did not comply with the precise wording of the exclusionary clause of Section 2(2) (b) of the Act. This contract did not delineate an anticipated tenure outside of “to cover leave “, which on reading suggests an open-ended tenure. I understand that the complainant subsequently learned that she was covering a maternity leave, yet this was not stated from the outset.

This exclusionary section provides:

(2)   Subject to subsection (2A), this Act shall not apply in relation to—

(a) dismissal where the employment was under a contract of employment for a fixed term made before the 16th day of September 1976, and the dismissal consisted only of the expiry of the term without its being renewed under the same contract, or

( b) dismissal where the employment was under a contract of employment for a fixed term or for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making, incapable of precise ascertainment) and the dismissal consisted only of the expiry of the term without its being renewed under the said contract or the cesser of the purpose and the contract is in writing, was signed by or on behalf of the employer and by the employee and provides that this Act shall not apply to a dismissal consisting only of the expiry or cesser aforesaid.

Three Performance Reviews accompanied the Complainants first year of employment. On 19 April 2018, Ms A told the complainant that she would not be comfortable issuing a permanent contract if one was made available, she would instead offer a 3-month fixed term contract in the hope that performance standards would be reached. If these standards were not realised, then the contract was to be ended.

This contract did not issue due to a simple oversight and instead, on July 6, the Complainant was offered a fixed term contract to commence on 23 April 2018 to 22 October 2018. The Complainant submitted that she signed the contract on 29 July 2018 without recourse to legal advice. She explained that she was upset at an engagement she had with Ms A on 6 July. This contract complies with the terms of Section 2(2)(b) and it is this precise clause which the Respondent submits excludes the complainants correct participation in this claim. However, it must also be reflected that by that time, the complainant had secured the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act in relation to her first contract of employment, as S.2(2)(b) had not been fully incorporated in that drafting and her service had been continuous.

The contractual pathway in this case was unusual. I appreciate that the Respondent Head Count forum holds the ultimate decision making in work force planning and this reflects good governance. I appreciate that the Hospital was also in a large change agenda at that time.

I must consider whether the second contract serves as an exclusion to the complainant’s participation in this case. To that end, I have reflected on the terms of Section 2(2) (b) of the Act and how the application of these terms has been considered in case law.

Section 2(2) (b) provides that

1 The Contract must be in writing

2 The Contract must be signed on behalf of the employer.

3 The Contract must be signed by the employee.

4 The Contract must provide that the Act shall not apply to a dismissal consisting only of the expiry of the fixed term or the cesser of the specified purpose.

Firstly, I looked at the Dawson case, cited by the Respondent, where the EAT determined that S.2(2) (b) had been correctly applied. While the complainant had worked from May 2010, it was a contract extension covering a maternity leave (the 3rd contract) which the EAT determined as the “crucial contract”.

The EAT drew on Section 23(a) of the Maternity Protection (amendment) Act 2004, which inserted the following provision to S 2(2) of the Unfair Dismissals Act

( c ) dismissal where the employee ’ s employer at the commencement of the employment informs the employee in writing that the employment will terminate on the return to work with that employer of another employee who is absent from work while on protective leave or natal care absence, within the meaning of Part IV of the Maternity Protection Act 1994, or is absent from work attending ante-natal classes in accordance with section 15A (inserted by section 8 of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004), or for breastfeeding in accordance with section 15B (inserted by section 9 of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004), of the first-mentioned Act, and the dismissal of the first-mentioned employee duly occurs for the purpose of facilitating the return to work of that other employee.

The Complainant was found to be excluded from protection of the Unfair Dismissals Acts as his employment was found to be time guarded to an employee on maternity leave.

In the instant case, the complainants first contract was not time guarded to a protective leave, as the person on maternity leave resigned and the complainant continued beyond that resignation. It is distinguished from Dawson in that vein. The reason that that the complainant was placed on a fixed term contract was performance and targeted improvements related.

I have considered a further case of Cahill V Teagasc [1996]ELR 215 ,the EAT considered the transition from “ an ordinary “ to a” fixed term employment “ in the case of a Supervisor who had worked for two years without a contract of employment prior to the application of the Fixed term contract .The Complainant argued that the provision of the fixed term contract was to frustrate the application of Unfair Dismissals Legislation and the EAT concurred .

However , there have been two significant cases from the higher courts from which I will now draw guidance .In the case of Malahide Community School V Dawn Marie Conaty UDD 1837, The Labour Court gave an in-depth consideration of a Respondent argument that the meaning and effect of the exclusionary clause contained in assigned fixed term contract concluded in October 2015 and whether or not it was enforceable it was enforceable ? This followed an earlier High Court decision on the same facts

The Labour Court took considerable time to explore the exclusion and waiver components of a contract. The Court considered a claim for unfair dismissal by a Teacher who taught English and Religion and recorded their decision as “based on a peculiar and in many respects unique, factual matrix of this case.”

They went on to state that Section 2(2)(b) of the Act allows an employee who wishes to accept a temporary employment arrangement from an employer to waive her rights to protection under the Act. In a situation where an employee is giving up what would otherwise be very valuable employment protection rights it is essential that the agreement clearly stipulates in writing what is being waived and that the parties indicate, through their signature, express agreement to it. These conditions must therefore be fully and completely satisfied

While much of the Labour Courts deliberations reflected that the complainant in the case had not realised that she was moving from a permanent to a fixed term contract, further commentary was directed that informed consent had not followed her acceptance of the contract and she was “not aware that by signing it she was relinquishing her rights under the Act.

The Court held that the fixed term contract of October 2015 was in breach of Section 13 of the Unfair Dismissals Act and was therefore void. The exclusionary clause of S 2(2)B) did not apply to the termination of the complainant’s employment.

The matter was further considered on appeal to the High Court in Board of Management, Malahide Community School and Dawn Marie Conaty {2019} IEHC 486

Again, the issue of “informed consent “was examined:

“A bald statement in the contract to the effect that the Unfair Dismissal Act does not apply to dismissal consisting only of the expiry of the fixed term would not be sufficient. Rather the contract would have to include an express acknowledgement to the effect that the employee was relinquishing their acquired right to the protection of the Act. The formula of words used in the contract of October 2015 is deficient in this regard. It did not put the teacher on notice of the loss of her statutory rights.

Justice Simmons went on to reflect that contract law places an onus on an employer to “explain the precise legal effect of changes on the loss of statutory rights “to the employee. The High Court affirmed UDD 1837.

For me, these deliberations and decisions have an application to the facts of this case. The Complainant had worked continuously on a specified purpose contract from March 13, 2017. This contract was not covered by the precise wording of Section 2(2) (b) as the word “only “had not been inserted.

This contract was replaced by the signed contract of 29 July endorsed by the Respondent on 31 July. The date of commencement of 23 April 2018 had already passed. It carried a confirmation of continuity of employment to 13 March 2017. I asked the complainant why she signed that second contract and she submitted that the interpersonal difficulties she experienced had caused her a certain confusion. I noted the 3-week delay before the complainant returned this contract and this period was not grounded in dialogue or discussion on its contents. I am satisfied that the Respondent did not explain the contractual changes pertaining to the exclusionary clause or afford the complainant a defined opportunity to seek legal advice on its impact. This contract was then extended from 22 October 2018 to 22 February 2019. There were no further discussions surrounding renewal /extension. A Permanent post was interviewed for late January and the complainant was unsuccessful and left her employment following an extended period of sick leave

In relying on the differentiation set out by the Labour Court between “an exclusion clause “and a “waiver “in Conaty, I find that the Respondent cannot properly rely on Section 4 of Contract 2 as an exclusionary clause to a claim for unfair dismissal. I am unable to accept that it can be applied in this instance as it falls foul of Section 13 of the Unfair Dismissals Act and must be regarded as void.

Section 13 of the Unfair Dismissal Act provides that a provision in an agreement, whether a contract of employment or not, shall be void insofar as it purports to exclude or limit the application of, or is inconsistent with any provision of the Act.

On this occasion, Section 4 of the second contract purports to exclude the already acquired statutory protection under the Unfair Dismissal Act secured by the complainant through the continuity of service. She had been working her specific purpose contract for a period of almost 16 months by the time contract 2 was raised and almost 17 months by the time it was endorsed by the Respondent. Her transition to contract 2, a less favourable and time guarded contract was not predicated on an explanation of the contractual variations, nor was it underwritten by informed consent. Therefore, Section 2(2) (b) has no application and the complainant is permitted to advance her claim for Unfair Dismissal.

CA -00027526-001 Unfair Dismissal (Substantive Case)

I have listened carefully to the evidence adduced by both parties. I have given further consideration to the written submissions of the parties inclusive of the Mediation Agreement and email thread from the Respondent 5th witness received post hearing.

The Respondent operates a busy hospital which during the period of the complainant’s employment, was undergoing a large change agenda where head count was a constant focus.

From the first day of hearing, I observed that both parties considered the allocation of contracts of employment through a different prism. The Complainant viewed their issue as a discretionary decree, whereas the Respondent applied a more scientific and economic basis to their issue. I asked both parties to make further submissions on this topic and I learned that the Respondent had practiced a two-year conversion process for permanency in some instances. The Complainant had not been comprehended by that process. It seemed to me at least that she did not know of its existence.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had settled well into the hospital during her first year of employment. However, her April performance review prompted several improvement notices. The complainant was permitted to record her response to these notices, but she chose not to. I was struck by this omission and probed further. The Complainant submitted that in both the performance review and the eventual PIP, she had told the Respondent what she thought they wanted to hear. It seems to me that she had an occupational conflict, where she did not agree with the Respondent validation of her performance, yet she did not openly challenge this. I have established that the Respondent had no real idea of the depth of this occupational conflict for the complainant until she gave her evidence at hearing. This prompted me to consider the myriad of processes engaged in by both parties via performance review, PIP, Mediation.

I am satisfied that the Respondent presided over a very robust and fair performance improvement plan. From my analysis, I found that this process was underutilised by the complainant. The Respondent had identified targets they needed to see and, in my opinion, provided a fair time and opportunity for these improvements to be realised. As in fact improvements followed during Summer of 2018.

From the complainants perspective , I found that she was very guarded in her approach to these targets and tended to focus on the smaller details rather than the overall objective of improvement .She had a strong sense that she was being wronged but did not articulate the depth of this until October 17 , when she told a meeting convened for PIP that she was being bullied and harassed by Ms A .

By then, she had signed the extension to the fixed term contract, so she ought not to have been as fearful of losing her job as she stated at hearing. However, I found it curious that despite repeated requests by the experienced HR staff, the complainant did not commit her complaint to writing. Instead, she agreed to participate in a Mediation presided over by Ms C, a trained Mediator. I cannot accept that the Complainant was not aware that Ms C was to lead this process. She signed a Mediation Agreement, where this was clearly delineated.

The Respondent took steps to alter her line manager during the Mediation and placed the PIP into pause mode. These were all proportionate and careful steps to conflict resolution.

I noted that Ms A was engaged in a PIP support for the first time and she also needed support. I could see that the events have equally been difficult for her. I noted that she contacted the complainant on her sick leave in January 2019.

The Complainant submitted that she had been managed out by the Respondent and that she had resumed sick leave post interview in response to being laughed at. I had difficulty with this assertion.

The Complainant reflected that she had not been considered for an interview in 2017. A careful analysis of the email thread shares by the Respondent demonstrated that the Complainant was asked to send a CV, but the complainants response indicated that her CV was unchanged since her initial application for the Grade 3 post. This suggests to me at least that the complainant did not update her CV February -July 2017. I have not been shown where the complainant followed this up two months later.

The Complainant developed an unease with the Respondent following “the bloods issue “She saw this as an isolated event, yet from the Respondent evidence, it was one mistake among many more. These mistakes caused a high level of concern for the respondent as they argued that their type of business had virtually no margin for error.

In all the circumstances the complainant took issue with how her perceived demerits were communicated with her. Extensive amendments were made to minutes, yet there seemed little debate on issues at the heart of the employment relationship. The Complainant confirmed that she told the Respondent what she thought they wanted to hear. I found that this was a self-defeating choice by her.

I took a moment to consider the General Reception Job Description, the foundation document in the case, I could see that the Respondent was chasing a top-class performance to anchor its mission statement and they believed that the complainant had shortcomings on occasion in that regard. The Complainant did not accept the detail of the shortcomings and strived for a different message.

This reached its height on October 17 when the Complainant referred to an 8-month period of unease. The Respondent, as stated, endeavoured to resolve this unease and understood that the Mediation had succeeded as they were not informed otherwise. There was no further record of the complainant’s unease as she recommenced sick leave on 29 January 2019 post interview and did not return.

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act provides that for the purposes of the Act, a dismissal of an employee shall be deemed to be unfair unless having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

Section 6(7) reflects that consideration may be given to the reasonableness of the employer conduct.

I have identified that the complainant has the locus standi on which to progress her complaint.

The Complainant submitted that she did not recover from the disappointment at not being selected for the January position. She told the hearing that she knew that she had not performed well, but she still held a belief that she had worked hard and deserved a permanent appointment. I appreciate that the manner of notification of the result was unusual, and the complainant was traumatised by that system. However, an expectation does not equate with an entitlement and the decision to appoint an alternative candidate went unchallenged by her.

The Complainant resumed sick leave and did not return. The Complainant had by then refused Occupational Health and EAP intervention. She did not present medical evidence of her medical conditions at hearing.

The Respondent is the dominant party in a contract of employment. I find that the respondent erred in allowing the complainant to drift into the ether on February 22, 2019. Having sanctioned her status to compete in the January 2019 competition, it suggests to me at least that the complainant had satisfied her targets. The PIP had been paused and the Mediation concluded without need for further intervention. The Complainant was employed to cover leave and this need continued to exist at the hospital. I appreciate that the Respondent was governed by a strict headcount governance and at the time understood that the second contract did not bind the enterprise post February 22, 2019. However, given the vast investment of time they had placed in the complainant, it was unusual that they did not reach out formally to her prior to February 22. On balance, the complainant equally drifted away.

I find that there were no substantial grounds covering the complainant’s termination of employment and she was unfairly dismissed on February 22, 2019.

Having regard for the earlier commentary, I have found that the complainant played a significant role in her dismissal. I found her underutilisation of company procedures and the pro-offered assistance programmes to be self-defeating in this case.

CA -00027526-002 Penalisation/Protected Disclosure

I have not received details of any protected disclosure on which to explore a claim of penalisation. The claim is not well founded.

CA-00027526-003 Penalisation/ Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005

This matter has been addressed in the claim for unfair dismissal and Section 27(5) of the Act prohibits that relief be granted under both Acts.

The claim is not well founded.

CA-00027526-005 Written Statement, Protection of Employees (fixed Term Work) Act 2003.

I have considered both parties submissions in this claim. Section 8 of the Act provides for certain components to be placed in a written statement and given to a fixed term employee.

Written statements of employer.

8

8.—(1) Where an employee is employed on a fixed-term contract the fixed-term employee shall be informed in writing as soon as practicable by the employer of the objective condition determining the contract whether it is—

( a) arriving at a specific date,

( b) completing a specific task, or

( c) the occurrence of a specific event.

(2) Where an employer proposes to renew a fixed-term contract, the fixed-term employee shall be informed in writing by the employer of the objective grounds justifying the renewal of the fixed-term contract and the failure to offer a contract of indefinite duration, at the latest by the date of the renewal.

(3) A written statement under subsection (1) or (2) is admissible as evidence in any proceedings under this Act.

(4) If it appears to a rights commissioner or the Labour Court in any proceedings under this Act—

( a) that an employer omitted to provide a written statement, or

( b) that a written statement is evasive or equivocal,

the Adjudicator or the Labour Court may draw any inference he or she or it consider just and equitable in the circumstances.

I have considered the letter of renewal dated October 1, 2018 and the Complainants acceptance of same. I note that the complainant was a Union member during this period an it is regrettable that she did not seek advice on this aspect of her employment.

The Labour Court has set very exact standards in terms of the application of Section 8. In Galway City Council and Mackey FTD 5/2006, the Court determined that the employer is obliged to service the required documentation reflective of Section 8. This incorporates a reasoning why a Contract of Indefinite duration has not issued. They went further in Dept of Social Protection V Mc Loughlin in FTD 10/2016 by stating that “very specific reasons as to why the contract was not a contract of indefinite duration.”

I accept that the Respondent informed the complainant of the objective grounds for the renewal of contract, however, there was no mention of why a CID could not issue on this occasion.

I have established a   contravention of Section 8 of the Act.

Decision:

CA -00027526-001 Unfair Dismissal

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

I have found that the complainant was unfairly dismissed but this must be balanced against her significant contribution to this. The Complainant was unavailable for work until May 2019. She found new work of short duration in November 2019.

I have considered that the complainant sought the remedy of re-instatement/re-engagement in this case. I have reflected on this and cannot see that it is a practical remedy. In this I am mindful that the complainant told the hearing that her medical advice was not to return during January 2019. I have not received any restorative medical opinion to counter this.

It seems to me that the Respondent and the Complainant were not a good fit, no blame attached to either party, but the employment relationship did not work and is in my opinion unlikely to work on a second attempt.

On that basis, I would like to make an award of compensation against the respondent to address the complainant’s loss.

I award the sum of €15,000 in compensation for actual and prospective loss and reflects the complainant’s contribution to her dismissal.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

CA -00027526-002 Penalisation/Protected Disclosure

The claim is not well founded.

CA-00027526-003 Penalisation/ Safety health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005

The claim is not well founded.

CA-00027526-005 Written Statement, Protection of Employees (fixed Term Work) Act 2003.

I have found the claim well founded and I award the complainant €1,000 as compensation for the contravention of Section 8 of the Act.

Unfair Dismissal, Penalisation, Protected Disclosure, Written statement in accordance with Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act, 2003.