Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Amy  Farrell

An Garda Síochána

Representatives

Fórsa

Industrial Relations Officer

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003

CA-00047585-001

10/12/2021

The complainant works as a cleaner with the respondent.

The complaint pursuant to the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 concerning the failure to provide the complainant a contract of indefinite duration was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 10 December 2021.

A hearing of the complaint was held on 9 May 2023. 

In February and March 2023, prior to the hearing, the respondent issued to the complainant, and withdrew, two written contracts of indefinite duration, and offered a third contract of indefinite duration in April 2023.

The matter of a contract of indefinite duration for the complainant was first raised by the complainant’s union with the respondent in January 2021.  Despite meetings with the respondent, and agreement that there was an entitlement to a contract of indefinite duration, the matter was not progressed by the respondent. 

The respondent’s lack of engagement with either the complainant or her union on the issue resulted in the referral of this complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission.  The respondent’s failure to engage with the complainant’s representative continued in 2022 and 2023.  The respondent issued a contract of indefinite duration to the complainant in February 2023 which was subsequently withdrawn.  An amended contract of indefinite duration issued in March 2023; the amended contract was also withdrawn by the respondent.  The respondent issued a third contract of indefinite duration in April 2023. 

The respondent’s lack of engagement and delay in issuing a contract of indefinite duration has negatively impacted the complainant and been a cause of considerable upset and frustration. 

Summary of complainant’s evidence

The complainant commenced working with the respondent in August 2016.  Over 2016/17, she worked at Garda Headquarters and different stations providing relief cover.  Since 2017, she has worked continuously at the same station, doing the same work 5 days per week, and working 37 hours per week.  

The complainant spoke with an executive officer in 2018 about getting a permanent contract.  She was advised that she had to be there four years before this could be considered. 

The complainant applied for established appointment to the grade of cleaner in 2021 and received a letter in July 2021 to say she was qualified for establishment.  Nothing changed or happened on foot of this in terms of the complainant’s employment or her status in employment. 

The complainant required a salary certificate for mortgage application purposes, and she submitted this to the respondent’s staff office for completion on three different occasions, most recently in April 2023. The salary certificate was not completed due to the complainant’s contract not having been finalised and an amended contract required.  The complainant was not in a position to get a mortgage without the salary certificate. 

The complainant is on the minimum hourly rate of pay.  She had no security and, as a relief worker, could just be replaced.   She did not know what number of days annual leave she was entitled to and received annual leave pay at the end of the year or the end of April, not at the time of taking annual leave.  An entitlement to paid sick leave was put in place from September 2022.  The complainant was not entitled to apply for a term-time work arrangement because she was a relief cleaner. 

Summary of written and oral submissions

The complainant’s role is classified as a relief cleaner.  The complainant was on a fixed rate of pay, aligned to the first point of the salary scale for the grade of cleaner. 

A contract of indefinite duration as relief cleaner, effective from 1 April 2019, was offered to the complainant having regard to the commencement date in employment and in an effort to regularise the complainant’s employment with the respondent.

A confined competition to regularise the complainant’s employment to a permanent vacancy is subject to governance measures.

Various ad-hoc arrangements for relief cleaner work were utilised by the respondent.  The respondent recognised that this could not continue and that there were entitlements to contracts of indefinite duration based on service.

The respondent accepted there were delays in bringing the contracts to fruition, but it was a complex matter which required input from various units and agreement from the senior leadership team as to the terms and conditions of the contract.

It was ultimately agreed to award a contract of indefinite duration, backdated to take effect from 1 April 2019, and to afford incremental credit from that date thereby placing the complainant on point 5 of the cleaner scale with effect from 1 April 2023.  The arrears of pay will be calculated and off-set against any superannuation payments owed by the complainant for pension credit under the Single Pension Scheme since 1 April 2019. 

There had been a satisfactory outcome to this matter, the complaint was resolved, and any further penalty on the respondent would be disproportionate.

A complaint concerning the respondent’s failure to acknowledge the complainant’s entitlement to a contract of indefinite duration was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 10 December 2021. 

The respondent submitted that the complaint was resolved and without merit as it had afforded the complainant a contract of indefinite duration as a relief cleaner with effect from 1 April 2019.  At the hearing, issue was taken by or on behalf of the complainant with the respondent’s delay in putting in place a contract of indefinite duration and the disregard in acknowledging the complainant’s rights and entitlements under the 2003 Act.

Written and oral submissions on behalf of the complainant and the complainant’s evidence at the hearing referenced the complainant being treated differently to other colleagues in relation to certain terms and conditions.  For the avoidance of any doubt, the sole complaint before me for adjudication is of a contravention of section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 (the “2003 Act”), which concerns restrictions on an employer’s use of fixed-term contracts in certain circumstances.  

The Factual Background

The complainant has worked as a cleaner with the respondent since 2016.   Her role was described by the respondent as a relief cleaner.  The respondent operated relief panels for cleaning staff at a time when it was unable to run competitions for permanent staff.  Various ad hoc arrangements developed for how relief cleaner work was utilised by the respondent.

When the complainant commenced in 2016, she was sent to different stations to provide relief cover and worked varying periods of time at the assigned station.  The complainant described the work as constant and that she slotted in wherever she was needed. 

The complainant has worked full-time hours at the same station since 2017.  She works five days per week, 37 hours per week. 

The complainant’s rate of pay was a fixed hourly rate aligned to the first point of the salary scale for the grade of cleaner.  The complainant did not receive incremental credit, paid sick leave or other leave entitlements to which permanent employees in the grade of cleaner were entitled.

The complainant’s employment with the respondent was not pursuant to any contract in writing or, if it was, no written contract or agreement was provided to me in my investigation of the complaint.  

The complainant’s union raised with the respondent the matter of a contract of indefinite duration for the complainant in January 2021.  There was agreement by the respondent that the complainant was entitled to a contract of indefinite duration but the matter was not progressed by the respondent to the satisfaction of the complainant and the within complaint was referred to the Commission in December 2021.

At the time of the hearing, the respondent had issued the complainant with a third version of the contract of indefinite duration it was offering to the complainant.  I was not provided with a copy of the contract of indefinite duration but it was not disputed that the contract offered makes provision for more favourable terms and conditions than those held by the complainant, including provision for pay with incremental credit, superannuation and paid sick leave.

Locus Standi

Given the interaction between the parties on the matter of the complainant’s employment, it is understandable how the complainant considered herself to be a fixed-term employee and the decision was taken to refer this complaint under the 2003 Act.  However, as I explained to the parties at the hearing, my jurisdiction derives from the 2003 Act and is not conferred by the agreement or acquiescence of the parties.  I must satisfy myself that the complainant is a fixed-term employee within the meaning of the 2003 Act at the material time of referral of the complaint or in the 6-month cognisable period because otherwise she can have no legal standing to maintain a complaint under the 2003 Act.  It is this particular issue that I will consider in the first instance.

Section 2 of the 2003 Act defines a fixed-term employee as:-

“… a person having a contract of employment entered into directly with an employer where the end of the contract of employment concerned is determined by an objective condition such as arriving at a specific date, completing a specific task or the occurrence of a specific event but does not include –

(a) employees in initial vocational training relationships or apprenticeship schemes, or

(b) employees with a contract of employment which has been concluded within the framework of a specific public or publicly-supported training, integration or vocational retraining programme;”

This definition was considered by Laffoy J. in Nerney v Thomas Crosbie Holdings Ltd [2013] ELR 238.  The plaintiff in that case was employed in 2004 pursuant to what was described as an executive contract.  The contract was expressed to be for a period of four years and to continue for periods four years unless the defendant gave notice of an intention not to renew at least 6 months before the expiry of any four-year period.  An issue for Laffoy J. to determine was whether the plaintiff was a fixed-term employee within the meaning of section 2 of the 2003 Act from the commencement of his employment with the defendant under the executive contract.  In the following extract from the judgement, Laffoy J. explains the essential characteristic of fixed-term employment, namely that it be determined by an objective condition:-

“The application of the definition of fixed-term employee to the plaintiff as an employee of the defendant under the Executive Contract raises the question whether the end of the Executive Contract is determined by an objective condition.  Having regard to the examples of “objective condition” set out in the definition, and also in s.8(1) of the Act of 2003, I understand “objective condition” to mean a condition which is identifiable by reference to the object, that is to say, the condition, without reference to the view or perception or intervention of either party to the contract.  A contract, such as an Executive Contract, the term of which is expressed to be from the commencement date for a period of four years and continuing for further periods of four years unless determined by six months’ notice from the employer given at least six months before the expiration of any four year period cannot be said to be determined by an objective condition, because the intervention of the employer, which may or may not happen, and in this case did not happen over a period of eight years is necessary to give rise to and identify the determining event.”

Application of the Law

The description of the complainant as a “relief cleaner” and the panel as a “relief panel” might reasonably be understood to mean that the complainant and panel were used to provide cover and replacement personnel for core or unavailable staff.   Neither party was in a position to clarify for me at the hearing how the relief panel operated.  The respondent did not avail of the opportunity given to submit post-hearing any information relating to the establishment and operation of the relevant relief panel, including information pertaining to the employment status of persons on the panel.   I note the lack of documentation and information provided to the complainant concerning her employment with the respondent from 2016 and the terms thereof, which is a further source of ambiguity.  

The evidence before me of how the complainant was assigned to different stations in 2016/17 is consistent with the understanding of the role outlined above.  It is possible that the complainant was employed on a series of separate fixed-term contracts during this period.  It is however also possible that the complainant was employed on a single contract, with no determining objective condition, and that any periods where the complainant did not work between assignments were periods of lay-off. 

Whilst the complainant had different terms and conditions of employment to other staff members and it was the complainant’s perception that she could be replaced by the respondent because of her classification as a relief cleaner, these features are not conclusive of fixed-term employment. 

I cannot find on the evidence before me that the complainant was employed at the material time on a contract of employment determinable by an objective condition such as reaching a specific date, completing a specific task or the occurrence of a specific event.  The complainant’s work arrangements from 2017, the complainant’s evidence that she was not aware of an event that would bring her employment with the respondent to an end and the terms of the contract offered by the respondent in April 2023 are not consistent with fixed-term employment or the complainant having been a fixed-term employee within the meaning of the 2003 Act.  There was also no evidence of a relief panel, on which the complainant was placed, having been established for a fixed period of time, specific purpose or until the occurrence of a specific event, nor indeed did the respondent’s representative maintain this position. 

In the circumstances, I find that the complainant was not a fixed-term employee within the statutory meaning of that term and accordingly lacks the legal standing to maintain this complaint under the 2003 Act.

I find that the complainant does not have the legal standing to maintain the complaint under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 for the reasons set out above.

Accordingly, my decision is that this complaint is not well founded.

Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 – Locus standi