Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Elizabeth  McAuley

Cpm Ireland Ltd.

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Mark O’Connor

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-00052086-002

04/08/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001

CA-00052086-003

04/08/2022

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 declined to turn on her camera for the proceedings.  She was informed that this may impact on any assessment of her credibility while giving testimony, however, the hearing proceeded on that basis.

The complainant and a witness for the respondent gave their evidence under affirmation.  Both parties were given the opportunity to cross examine the witness for the other side.

The respondent stated that he made a submission the night before the hearing.  As the submission had not been received by either the adjudicator or the complainant before the hearing commenced, the respondent agreed to procced in the absence of the submission.  The submission, should it be received, will therefore not be considered in relation to this decision.

CA-00052086-002 Terms of employment (Information) Act

The complainant submitted that her terms of employment were amended and was not notified in writing of the change.

CA-00052086-003 Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act

The complainant submitted that she was treated less favourably than a full-time employee.

CA-00052086-002 Terms of employment (Information) Act

The respondent confirmed that a change in the terms of employment took place in August 2021 for all of its employees, who serviced a particular client.

CA-00052086-003 Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act

The respondent stated that the comparator named by the complainant was not a full-time employee but was a part-time employee along the lines of the complainant herself.   It was also confirmed that this named employee had different terms of employment as two employees’ terms were red-circled following engagement with the employees in 2018.

CA-00052086-002 Terms of employment (Information) Act

Section 41(6) & (8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, as amended states as follows:

(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.

The complainant stated in evidence that the change to her terms of employment occurred sometime during 2021.  The respondent stated that this took effect in August 2021 and in response, the complainant agreed that this was the case.

The complaint was submitted in August 2022.  The period for referral under Section 41 (6) of the Act is six months from the date of the contravention.  No request to extend the period under Section 41(8) was submitted.  Accordingly, I find that this complaint was referred outside the timeframe, and I am precluded from entertaining the complaint.

CA-00052086-003 Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act

The complainant submitted that she was treated less favourably than a named comparator.  The respondent stated in evidence that this comparator was not a full-time employee.  In response, the complainant stated in evidence that she did not know whether the comparator was a full time or a part-time employee but that she was working full time hours for a period of time.  The respondent agreed that they had different terms of employment but clarified that she was a part-time employee.   This was not contested by the complainant.

Having regard to the foregoing, I am not satisfied that the complaint has established that her named comparator is a full-time employee and that she was treated differently to a full-time employee.  Accordingly, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00052086-002 Terms of employment (Information) Act

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint was referred outside of the timeframe comprehended by the Act, and I am precluded from entertaining the complaint.

CA-00052086-003 Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence present in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded.

Terms of Employment – outside time-limit for referral – precluded – Protection of Employees Part-time Work) – no full time comparator indicated -  not well founded.