ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00033915
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Loredana Mihaela Serbanescu Mituica | Sky Handling Partner Ltd |
Representatives | N/A | Peninsula |
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-00044824-001 | 28/06/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/02/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Specifically, I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021. The parties agreed to proceed in the knowledge that decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose their identities.
As there was no dispute on the facts, it was not necessary to take sworn evidence.
Background:
The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent as a Turnaround Co-Ordinator on 20 June 2018. She is alleging that the Respondent contravened the Act in a number of different ways following the Covid lockdown. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent as a Turnaround Co-Ordinator on 20 June 2018. The contract of employment issued to her when she started stated that she would be employed for a minimum of 20 hours per week. She highlighted a number of contraventions of the Act that allegedly occurred in March 2020. Specifically, she stated that she received an email on 19 March 2020 stating that her hours would be reduced and claimed that the failure by the Respondent to sign this notification in writing represented a breach of the Act. She also alleged that the Respondent breached their own policy on lay off and short time working and further claimed that the welfare forms she asked them to complete were incorrectly filled in. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent disputed that there were any contraventions of the Act and highlighted that they operated in accordance with legislation as well as their own policies and procedures at all times. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA 00044824-001: Preliminary Point The Workplace Relations Act 2015 at section 41, in relevant part, provides as follows (6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. 8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause. FINDINGS: I note that the start date of the Complainant’s employment was 20 June 2018 and that the complaint was referred to the WRC on 28 June 2021. I further note that she received a written contract of employment within the timeframes required by the legislation and that the alleged contraventions of the Act she highlighted in relation to the email notification around the reduction of hours as well as the alleged breach of the layoff/short time procedures occurred in March 2020. Given that these alleged contraventions were not referred within the required twelve month period, set out above, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear these aspects of the complaint. I also note that the allegation made surrounding the incorrect completion of welfare forms cannot be considered a breach of the Act and find that this aspect of the complaint is misconceived. |
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.
CA 00044824-001: I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint for the reasons set out above. |
Dated: 25th February 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|