Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Dental Nurse

A Dental Practice

Act

Complaint 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-00032181-001

13/11/2019

The complainant is a dental nurse and says her hours were reduced by the respondent.

She originally had a full-time contract entitling her to work thirty-five and a half hours, but this has been reduced to part-time hours.

She was initially told that the respondent had recruited too may dental nurses so that it did not have the hours to give her.

In due course she was given two extra shifts on a Saturday because no-one wanted to work at the weekend.

The respondent accepts that the complainant was originally contracted on the basis of thirty-five and a half hours, although the contract of employment does allow the employer to make changes in the hours. Hours can vary to take a account of the number of dentists available in the practice.

In fact, the change in the complainant’s hours was made initially at her request in January 2019 and these took effect in April 2019. A letter was issued to the complainant on May confirming the change.

At the end of August the respondent produced a new roster for consultation and the complainant indicated that she wanted to do five shifts per week, which was an increase and this was done on a somewhat ad hoc basis as the complainant had not specifically requested a return to the full thirty five and a half hours.

The respondent proceeded on the basis that the April/May change represented the complainant’s revised hours.

The respondent had no idea that the complainant was dissatisfied with the arrangement until it learned of the complainant’s referral of the matter to the WRC.

When it became aware of her grievance it met the complainant and on learning the she wished to return to the original working week it implemented this arrangement

The complaint is made under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act.

Section 5 of the Act requires, in the relevant part, an employer to notify an employee within one month of any change in the particulars of the statement provided.

The complainant disputed that she received the letter the respondent says it sent in May confirming the revised hours.

However, she did not dispute that the changes were made at her request in order to accommodate her educational needs, although this important detail was not included in her submission.

While it is always prudent to get and retain evidence of receipt of such documents, I am disposed on balance to accept that the document was sent to the complainant. The respondent conducts its business in this respect to a high level of compliance.

So little turns on that aspect of the matter, especially given that the complainant initiated the change and was well aware of it that I would make no award on the basis of a finding that it had not been.

In the circumstances, it is hard to see why this complaint was brought in the first place; it is a trivial matter and I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

For the reasons set out above I find complaint CA-00032181-001 not to be well founded.

Terms of Employment