TED2428

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00023305 (CA-00029878-002).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 25 February 2024 in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2012.  A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31 October 2024. 

The following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Dainis Jirgens (“the Complainant”) against an Adjudication Officer’s Decision given under the Terms of Employment (information) Acts 1994 – 2014 (the Acts) against his former employer C&D Foods Limited (“the Respondent”). 

The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was not well-founded.

This case is linked to EDA2455 and PWD2462 and TED2427 and UDD2444. The Complainant was assisted by a Court appointed Interpreter.

The following is the Determination of the Court.

Summary Position of the Parties

The Complainant submits that he was not notified of changes to his conditions of employment in breach of s.5 of the when he was transferred to work in another production area within the factory which had different duties and break times.

The Respondent submits that no complaint about changes to the Complainant’s condition of employment was made at first instance, and notwithstanding that fact no changes were implemented to his terms or conditions of employment.  The Complainant was employed as an operative and continued to work as an operative at his place of work was the Longford plant.

Applicable Law

Notification of changes.

5.— (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) 1 month after 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 or of any other laws or of any administrative provisions or collective agreements referred to in the statement given under section 3 or 4.

Deliberations of the Court

The Complainant submits that he was not notified of changes to his conditions of employment in breach of s.5 of the when he was transferred to work in another production area within the factory which had different duties and break times. 

It is accepted that the Complainant was provided with an Employee Handbook (in English and Latvian) at some point later on in his employment which set out certain terms and conditions applicable to hourly paid staff, including the Complainant. Included in the handbook were provisions relating to “hours of work” and “interchangeability and flexibility”.

No submissions or evidence was presented to the Court to support the Complainant’s contention that his transfer to work in another area within the factory deviated from the terms set out in the Employee Handbook or gave rise to a change to his conditions of his employment in breach of s.5 of the Act.

In circumstance where no breach of the Act was identified to the Court, the appeal must fail.

Finding

In all the circumstance of this case the Court finds that there was no breach of section 5 of the Act and accordingly the complaint is not well founded. The Complainant’s appeal fails.

The Adjudication Officer’s decision is affirmed.

The Court so Determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
28th November 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.