ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028687
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Noreen Waters | Adapt Domestic Abuse Services Adapt Services |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Laura Reidy The HR Suite |
Complaint:
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-00038541-001 | 06/07/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/05/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following 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.
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 would disclose their identities.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as an Information Officer. It was agreed between the parties that the gross weekly wage was €225.50 per week as part of a community employment scheme. The complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 17 July 2020. The Complainant gave evidence after swearing an affirmation. Sharon Murray of the Respondent and Mr Ciaran Casey of North Munster Citizen Information Services swore an affirmation and gave evidence for the Respondent. Both parties were given an opportunity to cross examine. As the facts were virtually identical, the case was heard in conjunction with ADJ-00029038.
I requested that the Respondent furnish additional emails which was duly received on 3 June 2022. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence that she raised an issue with the Respondent when a new contract of employment was issued to her. She stated in her evidence that she raised with location clause and the pay clause, in particular the requirement to work a week in hand. These complaints were raised with the Respondent. The Complainant stated she felt she had no choice but to sign the contract as there was limited availability of alternative employment due to the Covid19 pandemic. She confirmed in her evidence that the contracts were not false or misleading. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Mr Ciaran Casey of North Munster Citizen Information Services gave evidence on oath as to the background of sponsorship scheme. There were a series of three fixed term contracts of employment provided to the Complainant during the period from 6 April 2020 to 28 August 2020 by the Respondent. These contracts were opened by the Respondent. Ms Murray gave evidence that she spoke on the phone to the Complainant about her contract and sought to address her concerns around the location and payment clause. |
Findings and Conclusions:
After hearing the oral evidence of the Complainant wherein she confirmed that the term and conditions presented by the Respondent were not false or misleading. Consequently, I find the complaint is not well founded. |
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.
The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 29th July 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Terms and Conditions – False and Misleading – Not Well founded. |