ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029764
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ciara O’ Connor | Four Districts Daycare Center |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Employment Permits Act, 2006 | CA-00039633-002 | 07/09/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00039633-003 | 07/09/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/09/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following 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. Six people attended the hearing, and all gave their evidence under affirmation. The finalisation of this decision was delayed due to the impact of Covid 19. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00039633-002 The complainant submitted that she was penalised because she made a complaint regarding the wearing of personal protective equipment. CA-00039633-003 The complainant submitted that she did not receive a contract of employment or the appropriate details of her employment with the respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00039633-002 The respondent submitted that the complainant never made a compliant covered by the Employment Permits Act 2006 and accordingly was never penalised on that basis. CA-00039633-003 The respondent provided a signed dated copy of her contract as proof that she was provided with one. However, the respondent stated that the as the employee who co-signed the contract was no longer its employment, it was not able to state categorically that the complainant received a copy. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00039633-002 Schedule 2 of the Employment Permits Act, 2006 allows for redress for a contravention of Section 26(3) of the Act. Section 26 states as follows Prohibition on penalisation. 26.— (1) In this section “penalisation” includes any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects, to his or her detriment, an employee with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), “penalisation” in this section includes— (a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2005), or the threat of suspension, lay-off or dismissal, (b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion, (c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours, (d) imposition or the administering of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty), and (e) coercion or intimidation. (3) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee for— (a) making a complaint to a member of the Garda Síochána or the Minister that a provision of the Act of 2003 or this Act is not being complied with, (b) giving evidence in any proceedings under the Act of 2003 or this Act, or (c) giving notice of his or her intention to do any of the things referred to in the preceding paragraphs. The complainant did not provide any evidence of being penalised of otherwise mistreated under the Employment Permits Act 2003 or 2006. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00039633-003 The complainant stated that she did not receive a copy of her contract of employment however the respondent produced a signed, dated contract of employment and evidence was given that the usual procedure was to provide a contract to new employees. Having regard to the written and oral submissions of both parties, I am not satisfied that the signed, dated contract produced in evidence was not provided to the complainant at the time she signed it . There appears to be some confusion on the part of the complainant as to who was present when the contract was signed. Accordingly, I find 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 complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00039633-002 Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00039633-003 Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 4th November 2022.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Employment Permits Act – no evidence of penalisation – Terms of Employment (Information) Act – not well founded |