ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032947
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jaroslaw Kalinowski | Malahide Dublin Operation Ltd. Hilton Dublin Airport |
Representatives |
| Roy Horan 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-00043649-001 | 18/04/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/03/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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.
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 one witness for the respondent gave evidence under affirmation. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant confirmed that he was issued with a written document outlining his written terms and conditions in January 2020. The complainant confirmed that during the twelve months prior to taking the complaint he was not working for the respondent as he was on layoff. The complainant confirmed that during that time he did not have any issues regarding the terms of his employment relating to his hours of work, his overtime and to his holiday allowance. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that the complainant was given an updated copy of his written terms and conditions of employment as required by the Act in January 2020. The respondent submitted that the complaint referred to events that occurred more than fourteen months before the submission of a complaint and was therefore outside of the time limits envisaged by the legislation. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant confirmed that he was in receipt of his written terms and conditions at the time of making his complaint, additionally he confirmed that he had been in possession of this document for more that twelve months prior to taking his complaint. He further confirmed that he was not contending that any recent breaches took place. Under Section 41 (6) & (8) of the Workplace Relations Act, a complaint must be taken within a maximum period of 12 months of the event taking place: (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. Arising from the complainant’s admissions, I am satisfied that the complaint was 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.
Having regard to the written and oral evidence presented in relation t this matter, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 11/03/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Terms of Employment – no recent breach – not well founded. |