ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046300
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Elizabeth Carolan | Fatima Groups United |
Representatives | John O'Sullivan SIPTU |
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 | CA-00057250-001 | 20/06/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant worked for the Respondent creche as a childcare worker from 2nd October until 2017 until the 23rd of March 2023.
The Complainant returned from maternity leave in February 2023 and requested to be put on part-time hours. This was facilitated. The Respondent paid a reduced rate of pay for part-time workers of €14 an hour rather than €15.
The Complainant brought a complaint under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 with the assistance of her Union in June 2023. A hearing was held in November.
A month prior to the hearing the Respondent wrote to the WRC conceding that they needed to resolve the matter with the Complainant. As such the hearing focused on the loss arising from the breach.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation. She had been required to return to work part time due to childcare. She was disappointed when she was given a new contract with a different rate of pay. Her Union met with the Respondent in February 2023 and identified that her rights were being breached under this act. They tried to resolve the issue, but the Respondent maintained they were permitted to pay her at the part-time rate. In March she resigned her position with the Respondent. She felt she was being treated differently since her return from maternity leave and her service with the organisation was not being respected. Her loss from the breach of rights under the act was €122.50 and she requests compensation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent instituted different rates of pay for full and part time staff while also providing a raise to all staff. They believed they had objective criteria justifying this decision and were advised on the same by their external HR provider. There was an economic need for the move as full time workers are much harder to recruit. Following the Complainant filing her WRC case they realised that they had been poorly advised. They ended their contract with that HR company and have sought out a new one. The have tried to engage with the Complainant to settle this matter but have been unsuccessful. The Respondent would emphasis that they are a community run not-for-profit with limited means. |
Findings and Conclusions:
It is clear that the Complainant’s rights have been breached and that the Respondent is not contesting the case. Under section 16 of the act I have scope to award compensation to the Complainant for the breach of her rights under the act. Having regard to all the circumstance, the evidence provided at the hearing and the submissions made by both parties I believe that €350 is just and equitable. |
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 well founded I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €350 in compensation. |
Dated: 7th November, 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|