ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032643
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jennifer Clarke | Noonans |
Representatives |
| Mary-Jayne Andrews , IBEC |
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-00043084-001 | 12/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00043084-002 | 12/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 19 of the Carer's Leave Act 2001 | CA-00043084-003 | 12/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 | CA-00043084-004 | 12/03/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/09/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following 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:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant and two witnesses for the respondent gave their evidence to the hearing under affirmation. It was agreed that the complainant was employed on a part-time basis receiving average fortnightly earnings of €114.65. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00043084-001 The complainant submitted that she did not receive a statement in writing of her terms of employment. CA-00043084-002 The complainant submitted that she was not notified in writing of a change to her terms of employment. CA-00043084-003 The complainant submitted that she was penalised for having exercised or proposing to exercise her entitlement to Carer’s Leave. CA-00043084-004 The complainant submitted that as a part-time employee she was treated less favourable in relation to her conditions of employment than a comparable full-time employee. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00043084-001 The respondent submitted that the complainant did receive a statement of her conditions of employment when she began work on 14 November 2018. CA-00043084-002 The respondent submitted that the complainant’s terms and conditions remained the same apart from the fact that she moved from a permanent part-time contract to a temporary part-time contract following her resignation and subsequent re-employment. CA-00043084-003 The respondent submitted that the complainant never exercised or sought to exercise her entitlements to Carer’s Leave. CA-00043084-004 The respondent submitted that the complainant was never treated in a different or less favourable manner in relation to her conditions of employment that a comparable full-time employee and that all employees were treated in the same manner. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00043084-001 The respondent submitted that the complainant received her conditions of employment on 14 November 2018. These conditions were contained in two documents one a standard outline of all the terms applicable to employees, the second was contained in the letter of offer which related to the complainant’s specific position. The respondent also submitted that the respondent resigned from her permanent position on 13 August 2020 and took a temporary position that was offered to her on that date. The respondent submitted that her terms and conditions did not change except for the fact that her employment status changed form permanent to temporary. Evidence was given and agreed by the complainant that this change was notified to her in writing by text. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00043084-002 The complainant submitted that she was not notified in writing of a change in her conditions regarding the reduction of her hours. Evidence was produced and agreed by the complainant that the change in her hours was notified to the complainant in writing, once again by text. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00043084-003 The complainant confirmed in her oral evidence that she never sought to exercise her rights in relation to Carer’s Leave. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00043084-004 The respondent outlined how all employees were treated in relation to the reduction of their hours, regardless of their permanent or temporary status, and whether they were full or part-time employees. The complainant did not dispute this account. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded. |
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.
CA-00043084-001 Arising from the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00043084-002# Arising from the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00043084-003 Arising from the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00043084-004 Arising from the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 12th October 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Conditions of employment, Carer’s Leave, Protection of Employees, Not well-founded |