ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00034744
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ciara O’Meara | Explore Marketing Ltd |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Representatives |
|
|
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-00045769-001 | 23/08/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00045769-002 | 23/08/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00046340-001 | 21/09/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/11/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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:
The Complainant was employed as a Store Manager on 7th December 2020.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00045769-001 The Complainant was employed on 7th December 2020. On 24th December 2020, Level 5 restrictions were introduced and the store closed until 17th May 2021. The Complainant received core terms of her employment on 2nd December 2020, but her weekly hours were not specified. She did not receive her contract of employment until 8 months later on 19th August 2021. CA-00045769-002 The Complainant was given her core hours but it did not specify her weekly hours. The Complainant believes this is a deliberate attempt to allow the company to change her hours. She was employed on a 40 hour contract verbally, following conversations she was informed she should be working 37 hours. Her contract of employment states she is working 39 hours. CA-00046340-001 The Complainant complains that she was not notified of a change to her terms and conditions when her probation period was extended after she submitted a complaint to the WRC. The company says the store was closed during the period, but the Complainant says she was working and was complimented on her performance during the period. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00045769-001 The Complainant was employed on 7th December 2020. From 24th December 2020, Level 5 restrictions were introduced. Lockdown took place on 31 December 2020 and the store closed until 17th May 2021. The company decided to retain staff during the period of lockdown. The Complainant is correct, she did not receive her contract of employment until 19th August 2021. CA-00045769-002 The Complainant received her core terms at the start of her employment. The actual hours were not stated. As the Complainant was the store manager, she allocates hours and sets her own hours. CA-00046340-001 The company is disappointed the Complainant made a complaint to the WRC rather than pursue an internal grievance first. Following the business becoming operational, all managers were required to complete appraisals for staff within their probationary period. The Complainant refused to conduct appraisals. The Complainant had her appraisal on 14th September 2021 and was below standard due to failure to control hours and one of team complaining to the Health and Safety Authority regarding the store.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00045769-001 The complaint is made pursuant to S7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. It is accepted by the employer that a contract of employment was not provided until eight months after the Complainant’s employment commenced. I find the complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant compensation for the breach of €350.00 and direct payment by the Respondent. CA-00045769-002 The complaint is made pursuant to S7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. The Complainant received core terms at the commencement of employment but this was deficient as her weekly hours were not given. The Complainant worked 40 hours per week. Her contract stated she was only required to work 39 hours per week. I find the complaint is well founded, however as there was little difference in the hours, I make no award in respect of the breach which was rectified after eight months. CA-00046340-001 The Complainant complains she was not notified of a change to her terms and conditions when her probation period was extended after she submitted her complaint to the WRC. The company says the store was closed during the period of lockdown and the company returned to work in May. However, the Complainant says she was working and was complimented on her performance during the period. In September 2021, the company carried out probation reviews for all staff who were on probation. The Complainant was informed in September 2021 that her probation had been extended given the closure due to lockdown. The company say there were mitigating circumstances as they were closed due to the pandemic and were not operating normally. I accept there were difficulties for employers in the circumstances, however, the Complainant should have been notified of the change to her terms and conditions prior to her review in September 2021. I find the complaint is well founded, and make an award of €350.00 which I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the
CA-00045769-001 The complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant compensation for the breach of €350.00 and direct payment by the Respondent. CA-00045769-002 The complaint is well founded, however, I make no award in respect of the breach which was rectified after eight months. CA-00046340-001 The complaint is well founded. I award €350.00 in respect of the breach. |
Dated: 05/9/23
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Key Words:
|