Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Gaurav  Arora

Revenue Commissioners Corporate Service Division

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Clare Bruton BL Noreen Collins Solicitor

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00057096-001

13/06/2023

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

CA-00057096-002

03/08/2023

The Complainant is employed with the Respondent since 20th January 2020.

The Complainant was employed as a Clerical Officer and was promoted to Executive Officer on a shift post in July 2022. The Complainant wished to resign from his post to revert to Clerical Officer so he could apply for an advertised Executive Officer post (non-shift) for work life balance. He discussed this with his line manager.

The Complainant resigned from his Executive Officer post on 16th January 2023 at 11.38am and informed his line manager and HR. His application for an Executive Officer non-shift role was returned, he was told he was not eligible as he is still an Executive Officer. He was informed the earliest date his resignation can be accepted is one month later on 17th February 2023.

He submitted a review of this decision. He was not informed of a requirement to provide four week’s notice period to revert to his previous grade. He has not been provided with any Circular where he can see grounds for excluding him from the competition.

The Complainant’s contract of employment does not state he must give 4 week’s notice of resignation.

The Complainant claims a breach of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 and Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

The Respondent says the claims are entirely misconceived and are without merit.

The Complainant commenced employment on 27th January 2020 as Clerical Officer. He was promoted to Executive Officer in February 2022. On 8th December 2022, a competition for promotion to Executive Office (non-shift) was advertised. The competition booklet made it clear that applicants had to be eligible for any application for the position.

On 13th January 2023 the Complainant submitted an application for the Executive Officer position. He notified his line manager of his resignation from his Executive Officer post on 16th January 2023. The effective date of resignation of the Complainant from his post was 20th February 2023. As a result, the Complainant was ineligible to apply for the post of Executive Officer when he made his application on 13th January 2023. He was informed he was not eligible on 19th January 2023.

The Complainant made an application for informal review and formal review which were unsuccessful.

The Complainant remained in his Executive Officer position until his reversion to the Clerical Officer grade on 20th February 2023. He was in the position of Executive Officer at the time of his application. He was aware of his ineligibility in advance. Custom and practice provides there was a time period required to remove the allowance in an allowanced post. Inadequate notice of resignation was provided by the Complainant.

The Complainant complains about how he was treated when he provided his resignation and the events thereafter, and his exclusion from entering an internal competition.

The Respondent says the complaint does not fall within S4 or S5 (2) of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 as the Complainant’s employment has not terminated. No notice is due to the Complainant.

The Complainant claims a breach of S7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, however none of the complaints fall within the purview of the Act.

The complaints should be dismissed as misconceived.

I heard and considered the submissions and evidence of the parties.

CA-00057096-001

The Complainant is employed with the Respondent as a Clerical Officer. The complaint relates to his resignation from a post of Executive Officer and return to the post of Clerical Officer on 16th January 2023.

The Complainant alleges a breach of S12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 however he is still employed. The complaint is not well founded as the Complainant remains in the employment of the Respondent.

CA-00057096-002

The Complainant alleges a breach of S7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

S3 of the Act provides that written statement of the employee’s terms of employment shall be provided no later than one month after the commencement of employment to the employee.

S 3 (l) requires:

“the period of notice which the employee is required to give and entitled to receive (whether by or under statute or under the terms of the employee's contract of employment) to determine the employee's contract of employment or, where this cannot be indicated when the information is given, the method for determining such periods of notice, be set out in the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment”.

The Complainant was provided with conditions of assignment for promotion to Executive Officer Grade on 18th July 2022. The written conditions of assignment provided to the Complainant do not contain details of the period of notice the employee is required to give and entitled to receive to determine the employee’s contract of employment.

I find the complaint is well founded and direct payment of two week’s compensation by the Respondent of net 1,122.08 euro to the Complainant.

CA-00057096-001

The complaint is not well founded.

CA-00057096-002

The complaint is well founded and I direct payment of two weeks compensation by the Respondent of net 1,122.08 euro to the Complainant.