TED2415

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00030310 (CA-00039852-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 7th September 2023 in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2012.  A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th June 2024. 

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Brian Healy (hereafter the Complainant) against an Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00028774- CA-00039852-001 given under the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994 to 2014 (the Acts).  in a claim against Pilvine Ltd (hereafter the Respondent) that he lost the use of a company van to carry out his work.  The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was not well founded.

Background

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in 2016.  His employment terminated on the 23rd April 2021 by way of redundancy.  The Complainant submitted his complaint to the WRC on the 16 September 2020. The time limits as set out by the Act are 17th March 2020 to 16th September 2020. This case is linked to TE/23/61, PW/23/88, Pw/23/87, UD/23/136.

Summary of Complainant’s case

The Union representative for the Complainant submitted that from early 2017 the Complainant had access to the company van for work and personal use.  In April 2020 while the Complainant was on Lay- off the Respondent advised him by email, that they were considering selling the company vans and had offers in on both. The Complainant was afforded the opportunity to buy one of the vans if he wished, but he chose not to do so.

 It was the Complainant’s evidence when he returned to work on the 1st July 2020 after Covid Lay-off both vans were still onsite and had not been sold. It was his evidence that he was informed by Mr Mc Kay at that point that he was not to take the van home in the evenings. He confirmed that he still had access to the van for work and on one occasion when he had to travel to Galway for work, he was able to bring the van home overnight.   It is the Complainant’s submission that this change to his terms and conditions of work was contrary to section 5 of the Act.

Summary of Respondent’s case

 The Respondent stated that the Complainant was provided with a company van in early 2017. However, the van was the property of the company and was also used from time to time by other staff members, particularly when the Complainant was absent on sick leave or annual leave. About one week after his Covid lay of in April the Complainant returned the van to Mr Mc Kay who required it to keep the business going through Covid. The Company records show that the Complainant used the company vehicle every day he attended work after 2nd July 2020 until his temporary lay-off at the end of October 2020, and that he had the vehicle overnight on three occasions in September 2020.   The Complainant never raised the issue of bringing the van home until the 3rd of September when he emailed looking to be paid compensation for not taking the van home. It is the Respondents submission that they had considered selling the vans and had given him notice of same but ultimately did not sell them.  The Complainant had access to the full use of the van and was advised of this by Mr McKay when he raised it in September 2020.

The relevant Law

5. Notification of changes

(1) Subject to subsection (2), whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than—

[(a) the day on which the change takes effect, or]

(b) where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month, the time of the employee's departure.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a change occurring in provisions of statutes or instruments made under statute [other than a registered employment agreement or employment regulation order] or of any other laws or of any administrative provisions or collective agreements referred to in the statement given under section 3 or 4.

Discussion

 The parties disagreed over whether or not the Complainant was told he could not take the van home when he returned to work in July 2020. It did not appear to the Court that it was disputed that prior to Covid, the Complainant could and did take the van home in the evenings. The Court was provided with a copy of a contract provided to the Complainant on the 19 March 2020, by the Respondent which the Complainant accepts he received. There is no mention in that document of a company van being provided for personal use. The fact that the Complainant refused to sign the contract, does not prevent it from being a statement furnished by an employer of terms and conditions as required by the Act. This document was in being during the relevant period.  The Act requires notification of changes to any of the particulars contained in the statement furnished by an employer. In the case to hand the Complainant has failed to identify a change to any particulars in the statement furnished by the employer, under section 3,4 or 6 of the Act ,and therefore his complaint must fail.  On that basis the Court determines that there was no breach of the Act during the cognisable period.

Determination

 The Court having carefully considered the Complainants submission and evidence determines that there was no breach of the Act during the cognisable period. 

The appeal fails. The   decision of the Adjudication Officer is  upheld.

The Court so Determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
FC	______________________
24 July 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.