Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Richard  Croucher

Independent Irish Health Foods Ltd

Representatives

  Appeared in Person

Diane Reidy, O' Sullivan Reidy Solicitors

Act

Complaint 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-00055108-001

14/02/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00055108-002

14/02/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00055108-005

14/02/2023

On 14 February 2023, the Complainant, a driver, made a number of complaints arising from his employment with the respondent company which covered the period 17 May 2022 to 17 January 2023. He was paid a gross wage of €740 per week.

Two claims under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 were met by an early objection from the employer and the complainant was offered the opportunity to refer these claims to the Labour Court. These complaints are not before me.

The Respondent operates   a transport business and came  to hearing to defend the case.

Neither party submitted outline submissions in advance.

During the preliminary process of agreeing the contents of the Complaint form with the parties, I asked the complainant whether it was his intention to submit a complaint under minimum notice legislation? In my preparation for hearing, I had observed a faint tick on the left-hand column of this area of the complaint form, I had not observed it in the sequencing of complaints on the notification of hearing.

I asked the complainant if he had noticed this, and he said he had not noticed but confirmed that he wished to press on with this complaint.

I worked with the Respondent surrounding their understanding of this claim and equally, the respondent had not noticed this complaint on the notification of hearing letter.

I asked the respondent if they wished to answer this case and they took a short recess to consider their position, reporting back some 10 minutes later that the respondent was prepared to respond to the claim as requested.

I have added this to the three pre-existing complaints and have titled it as: CA-00055108-006    

Prior to the hearing, the Respondent had been unsuccessful in seeking a postponement. This application was made to the administrative division of the WRC.

The Respondent had flagged that they then intended on leading with a Preliminary Argument at hearing.

 I requested the Solicitor to the Respondent to articulate the Preliminary Issue at the commencement of the main hearing and once the claim form was agreed. This was completed.

The Complainant was welcomed in presenting   his own case. He submitted a complaint form which reflected an employment as a van driver from 17 May 2022 to his termination of employment on 17 January 2023. On 14 February 2023, He submitted the four complaints outlined below to the WRC.

CA-00055108-001 Terms of Employment (Information Act) 1994

The Complainant submitted that he had not received a statement in writing of his terms of employment in accordance with the Terms of Employment (information) Act, 1994

CA-00055108-002 Terms of Employment (Information Act) 1994

The Complainant submitted that he had not received a notification of change in his working conditions in accordance with the Terms of Employment (information) Act, 1994

CA-00055108-005 Terms of Employment (Information Act) 1994

The Complainant submitted that he had not received notice with regard a change in his terms of employment.

CA-00055108-006 Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The Complainant submitted that he had not received his statutory minimum period of notice or payment in lieu thereof on the termination of his employment.

The complainant submitted details of his contract of employment.

On March 3, 2023, the WRC requested that the complainant clarify whether he wished to refer CA-00055108-005 to Adjudication or Inspection service.? On March 7, 2023, the Complainant clarified that he wished to pursue the complaint in the Adjudication service. The complaint was added to this file.

The Complainant came to hearing and worked through the contents of the complaint form. He stated that his issue surrounded not getting the terms outlined in the contract.

I requested that the complainant consider and respond to the respondents Preliminary Issue on time limits.

Preliminary Issue of Time Limits:

When requested to respond to the Preliminary Issue, the Complainants demeanour changed visibly.

He submitted “In other words, I haven’t a leg to stand on “in a loud voice.

I sought to intervene by stating that I was here to both sides in the case, and this was a Preliminary issue. I informed the complainant he would be given time to make his case.

The Complainant then stated, “I am going to let it go ““You are wasting my time “

When requested to clarify what he meant by this, he disconnected from the hearing.

There was not follow up explanation for this occurrence.

The Respondent operates a Transport company and comes to hearing to flag a preliminary issue of an objection on statutory time limits in all three complaints under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

The Respondent confirmed that they were prepared to accept and answer the adjunct complaint of CA-00055108-006.

The Respondent was welcomed to hearing through Ms Reidy, Solicitor for the Company. Two Senior Managers were prepared to give evidence.

Preliminary Issue of Time Limits:

Ms Reidy for the Respondent addressed a preliminary objection to the complaint being heard on the basis that the claim was lodged more than 6 months after the last alleged contravention of the Act. Ryan v Smart School Accounting ADJ 30153.

It was the Respondent case that a contract was issued and signed within the 2 months provided for in the legislation. The Operations Manager would attest to this.

When asked to respond to the complainant’s verbal outburst, Ms Reidy confirmed that she had heard the complainant saying that he wished to let the matter go, which the respondent interpreted as a withdrawal of the claims.

The Respondent accepted that statement.

CA-00055108-001 Terms of Employment (Information Act) 1994

The respondent sought the claim should fall on the preliminary issue outlined.

CA-00055108-002 Terms of Employment (Information Act) 1994

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had withdrawn this claim.

CA-00055108-005 Terms of Employment (Information Act) 1994

The respondent sought the claim should fall on the preliminary issue outlined.

CA-00055108-006 Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had withdrawn this claim.

I have been delegated four complaints related to this workplace. I have given the parties time to state their respective cases.

I was satisfied on the clarifications reached during the party’s early consideration of the complaint form that there were four live complaints on which the case was built.

I was not prepared for the complainant’s verbal outburst when requested to respond to a preliminary argument.

I believed that he had been welcomed to the hearing and all parties were embarking on the substance of the case.

I have to respect that the complainant clearly changed his mind about progressing these four complaints at Adjudication when he left the hearing.

Had he stayed on the screen a few more minutes, I would have shared the WRC template for withdrawing claims to assist in the administration of a withdrawal.

Instead, I am left to make a decision in all four cases in the absence of the complainant opening his case at hearing.

I disagree with the Complainants contention that I was “wasting his time “On the contrary, I believe that the complainant was welcomed to hearing and his contribution in ventilating his complaints eagerly awaited, when he disconnected without notice.

I apologised for the interruption in the hearing to all present.

It is important for me to set out the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 at Section 41(5) as it captures my role and responsibility to both parties.

 5) (a) An adjudication officer to whom a complaint or dispute is referred under this section shall—

(i) inquire into the complaint or dispute,

(ii) give the parties to the complaint or dispute an opportunity to—

(I) be heard by the adjudication officer, and

(II) present to the adjudication officer any evidence relevant to the complaint or dispute,

(iii) make a decision in relation to the complaint or dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provision, and

(iv) give the parties to the complaint or dispute a copy of that decision in writing.

 captures my role and responsibility to both parties.

CA-00055108-001 Terms of Employment (Information Act) 1994

The Complainant did not give evidence in the complaint. He said “I am going to let it go “I find that the claim is not well founded.

CA-00055108-002 Terms of Employment (Information Act) 1994

The Complainant did not give evidence in the complaint. He said “I am going to let it go “I find that the claim is not well founded.

CA-00055108-005 Terms of Employment (Information Act) 1994

The Complainant did not give evidence in the complaint. He said “I am going to let it go “I find that the claim is not well founded.

CA-00055108-006 Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The Complainant did not give evidence in the complaint. He said “I am going to let it go “I find that the claim is not well founded.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 requires that I make a decision in accordance with Section 3 of that Act.

CA-00055108-001 Terms of Employment (Information Act) 1994

The complaint is not well founded.

CA-00055108-002 Terms of Employment (Information Act) 1994

The complaint is not well founded.

CA-00055108-005 Terms of Employment (Information Act) 1994

Section 11 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 requires me to make a decision in accordance with Section 4 of that Act.

The complaint is not well founded.

CA-00055108-006 Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973

Section 11 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 requires me to make a decision in accordance with Section 4 of that Act.

The complaint is not well founded.

Failure by the Complainant to participate at hearing. Preliminary Issue.