Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Breiffni  Ryan

Connolly Hospital Blanchardstown

Representatives

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-00053045-002

29/09/2022

The Complainant worked for the Respondent hospital on fixed term contract from 1st of July 2020 until 17th of June 2022.

The contract was for a specified purpose of covering a clerical role until a competition was organised to fill the role. The Complainant had applied for the permanent role when it came up and was unsuccessful. She was of the view that a person on the interview panel (“Ms. Y”) had a conflict regarding her and blocked her from gaining a permanent role. The contract expired on the 17th of June with notice.

On the 20th of September 2022 the Complainant submitted a complaint form to the WRC alleging that she had been treated less favorably than a full time employee. In the complaint form narrative she outlined her concerns regarding the interview process and raised a number of issues regarding a manager Ms Y as well as concerns regarding her role. These issues spanned back to the beginning of the Complainant’s tenure some twenty three months before the complaint was lodged. 

The case was assigned to Adjudication Officer Mr Michael Ramsey, now Ramsey J, and a hearing was held on the 29th of March 2023. Following his appointment to the District Court a de novo hearing had to be arranged.

The Complainant wrote to the WRC shortly before the new hearing date and outlined the upset and stress caused by the delay to date. She further outlined the issues she would have arranging time off from her new job and indicated that she would not be in a position to attend the hearing. The Complainant requested that the WRC look over the case and make a decision on the papers.

The Complainant did not attend the hearing.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

Given the length of time the Complainant has had this matter hanging over her (to use her words) I did consider writing to the Respondent and seeking agreement for matters to be considered on the papers. This would be in the alternative to issuing a decision noting the failure of the parties to attend and dismissing the complaints, which is the normal course of action.

However, on a review of the complainant’s submissions, I am satisfied that the complaint is misconceived and that I should issue a decision on that basis.

The Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 relates to the treatment of part time workers in respect of comparable full time workers. Specifically in respect of their conditions of employment. It also provided protection from penalisation.

The Complainant has identified no specific full-time employee who she believes she has been treated unfavourably in comparison to. If she is advancing the case that Ms Y is her comparator, which I am not sure she does, Ms Y occupied a fundamentally different role and could not function as a comparator for the purpose of these acts.

In her submissions the Complainant refers to the unfair treatment she feels the night shift suffered. She says she would not get breaks and was not supported in the way days shift staff were.  This does not relate to her status as a part time worker which is what is relevant for the purposes of this act.  

The Complainant refers to her not being selected for a permanent post and essentially being fired as a result of this decision however it is not clear how this relates to her status as a part time employee. 

She believes that she was singled out and victimised by management. While penalising employees for asserting their rights under this act is prohibited the Complainant believes she was penalised following an incident in March 2021 refusing to answer Ms Y’s questions regarding the hours a colleague was working. This is clearly unrelated to the act.

The Complainant’s grievances with the Respondent do not seem to in any way relate to this act. As such I am of the view, I should exercise my discretion under section 42.1 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and dismiss the complaint.  

I note that the Section 42 uses the term “frivolous.” I would like to emphasise that this is only meant in the sense is that it the complaint is futile in the legal sense and incapable of achieving the desired outcome. Of course the matters alleged by the Complainant are extremely important, they are just not matters which relate to the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001.

For the reasons set out above I dismiss the complaint in accordance with Section 42 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.