Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Noel O'Donoghue

GlaxoSmithKline Dungarvan Limited

Representatives

Mr. Richie Browne,  Unite the Union

Mr. John Farrell  IBEC

Act

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-00043893-001

05/05/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00043893-002

05/05/2021

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 16th August 1996. At all times, the Complainant’s role was described as a “manufacturing supervisor”. The Complainant is a full-time, permanent employee, and was still in employment on the date of the hearing.

On 5th May 2021, the Complainant referred the present complaints to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that the Respondent had failed to amend his contract of employment on foot of an amendment of his duties. The Complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts was not pursued by the Complainant following referral.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened and finalised on 24th March 2022. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. As the parties were in agreement regarding the factual matrix in relation to the dispute, no evidence was taken and the matter was dealt with by submission.

No technical issues were experienced by either side during the hearing. No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent failed to amend his contract on foot of an amendment to his duties. In particular, the Complainant submitted that his role had migrated from being primarily manufacturing based to being primarily compliance based.

While the Complainant received comprehensive contractual documentation at the outset of his employment, this was not updated to reflect this fundamental alteration to his duties. The Complainant also submitted that he did not receive an updated job description in this regard.

By response, the Respondent denied the allegation. They submitted that the Complainant received a comprehensive set of contractual documentation that was compliant with the Act at the outset of his employment. While they accepted that the Complainant’s duties may have been amended in the course of his employment, such amendments were within the initial contract issued to him and required no amendment.

In the present matter, it is common case that the Complainant received a comprehensive set of contractual documentation at, or near, the commencement of his employment. In this regard, it is accepted that the requirements of Section 3 of the Act have been complied with.

It is the Complainant’s case that his role was significantly altered in the course of his employment, and that his contractual documentation was not updated to reflect the same. In this regard, Section 5(1) of the Act provides that,

“…whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than (a) 1 month after the change takes effect…”

Again, it is common case that the Complainant’s responsibilities and duties were amended in the course of his employment. I note Section 3(1)(d) of the Act provides that an employee should be provided with a written statement of “the title of the job or nature of the work for which the employee is employed” and by operation of Section 5(1), it will be a breach of the Act if an employee is not provided with a written statement reflecting an amendment to the same within one month of such amendment.

From the wording of Section 3(1)(d), it is clear that the same imposes an obligation on an employer to provide a written statement of either “the title of the job” or the “nature of the work for which the employee is employed” with the right of election belonging to the Employer. In the present case, the Complainant’s contract of employment describes his job title as “manufacturing supervisor”.  It is clear that while the Complainant’s duties may have been amended in the course of his employment, his job title remained “manufacturing supervisor”.  Having regard to the same, the Complainant job title was not changed, and consequently there was no requirement provide an amended written statement under Section 5. In light of the foregoing, I find that the complaint is not well-founded and the Complainant’s application fails.

CA-00043893-001 - Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act

I find that the complaint is not well-founded and consequently, the Complainant’s application fails.

CA-00043893-002 - Complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts

This complaint was not pursued at the hearing. Consequently, I find that the Complainant’s appeal fails.