ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00039219

Parties:

Complaints:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  24/04/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015and/or Section 8 of the UnfairDismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,and/or Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, and/or Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and/or Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994,following the referral of the complaints  to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints  and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background:

The Complainant submitted 7 complaints against the Respondents, his former Employers.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant submitted many documents and additional information containing detailed accounts of payments received in connection with his employment.  At the hearing, he read from his statements summarised as follows (in his own words):

I am unfairly dismissed in February 2022 after me and my partner and co-worker claim a salary revision and discuss with the employer about the excessive overtime working hours, the work overload and injuries caused by it.

In February 2022, I realize that the employer is not treating me right and I start seeking information about my unfair dismissal. I find the existence of the WRC and I read about my entitlements. This is the first time that I know that my work relation was full of unfair and illegal circumstances, including the fact that I am required to work more than the maximum permitted number of hours.

The employer takes advantage of my ignorance during all my work relations. This ignorance about my entitlements is derived from my origin, as I am not Irish and my knowledge about my entitlements in Ireland is nil compared to other local workers. During my work I spend most of the time with my partner and co-worker who has the same origin than me. I have no chance to talk to other local workers about my work entitlements, as my partner and I form a team at work and spend together most of the working time. Besides, I don’t start to understand which are my entitlements until I am unfairly dismissed and seek for information on that matter. I didn’t receive any information about my entitlements during my work relations from the employer or any others.  

During all my work relations, I am constantly required to work more than the maximum permitted number of hours. The employer, in bad faith, doesn’t provide me with a signed copy of the overtime working hours and other expenses report that I submit.   I do not get fair weekly rest period, and I have no document from the employer regarding this unfair situation.

The Complainant made many written submissions regarding his contract of employment, conditions of employment and termination.  Some extracts summarised from the submissions as follows:

From my first day in Ireland, and also my first working day 12/10/2020, and during all my work period for the employer, I live with my partner and co-worker at one of the employer's properties, next to my workplace.

At the time of requesting my PPS number, at the beginning of my work relation, the Estate Manager, PM states the following on a written document addressed to the Social Welfare Office: “While in employment at … Mr Santos will be living at the Ferryman’s cottage..”.

The employer provides the housing in their property as part of my wages. As detailed in another complaint also addressed to the WRC (CA-00050734-009), this is a very valuable agreement for me and it was an inalienable condition for me to start working in Ireland for my employer.

It is an essential in my core terms and conditions of employment, but it is not stated in my work contract as it should, causing me indefension.

As per my contract, I am employed “as a housekeeper/Service/ maintenance staff member”.

My duties include the following tasks contained in my work contract: “Washing of cars Maintenance and cleaning of all boats Maintenance and cleaning of pontoon and pontoon lockers Morning and afternoon walk for dogs Minor repairs inside of main house. Changing light bulbs, replacing washers on taps. Regular checking tablets/Sonos/installing update/BMS system.”

In addition to the duties list shown in my contract and this wider list of tasks, I do plenty different things that my employer requires. For example: I take care of a chicken’s coop, wax furniture and floors, do the shopping and order supplies, take part in construction, plumbing and gardening tasks, take the employer’s cars to NCT, pick up and drive other employees from the airport to the private estate, write a submission against a windfarm, design and prepare first aid kits, heal one of the employer’s dogs with a tourniquet avoiding him to lose one of his legs after being seriously wounded and many other different tasks. I have a wide range of capabilities and experience in different areas, acquired during my employment and before, including team leading, kitchen aid, waiter service, cleaning, animal care, gardening, construction, repairs, driving, boat piloting, swimming teaching, first aid, computing systems and software developing.

On 19/01/2022, me and my partner and co-worker request a salary revision to the employers.

On 27/01/2022, me and my partner and co-worker, discuss with the employer about the excessive overtime working hours, the work overload and the injuries caused by it.

On 07/02/2022, just a few days later, I am unfairly dismissed and I am notified to be redundant without any redundancy process followed and no answer from the employer to my numerous requests of the documents around it. The real reason for my dismissal is that my employer was annoyed by me and my partner’s requests on the previous days. I am not proved to be redundant by the employer. The employer alleges redundancy without any proof or document to back it up and without any legitimate reason for making redundancies under the legislation. There is no selection process, no written or verbal warning, no investigation, no criteria, no consultation period, no alternative offerings, no interviews and no hearings before I am notified to be redundant with no option to appeal to the employer. I am not offered any time off to look for work before I am dismissed.

I am not allowed to defend my position or discuss anything during the meeting. I don’t receive any written document during the meeting. I am not given the chance to be accompanied by a work colleague or a legal representative, as it is set in my contract of employment.

After the meeting, the employer doesn’t provide any redundancy certificate or any other document regarding my redundancy. Just a very brief statement indicating that my role was made redundant “due to an estate wide staff review”.

The employer also communicates me their decision to force me to leave my place of residence, owned by the same employer.

On 09/02/2022, I request my dismissal documentation.

On 10/02/2022 the employer provides me with misleading documents, in bad faith, saying that they will provide a "goodwill package", unilaterally set by them.

The employer forbids me to enter their properties and to talk to any other staff members until I leave Ireland, causing me indefension. The employer asks me not to work during the notice period. The employer promises to pay me one month salary after six months from dismissal, only if I'm a “good leaver” according to their own conditions. The employer gives me “10 working days from notice of redundancy to pack up and leave” my place of residence.

With the offering of this "goodwill package" the employer, in bad faith, intends me to desist on any possible claim related to my unfair dismissal. By offering one month salary payment only if I'm a "good leaver" after six months from dismissal, the employer tries to persuade me not to present any claim within 6 months of the dismissal happening, what would exhaust the claim period. Besides, the promises made on this "goodwill package" are not fulfilled by the employer, as explained in my other complaints addressed to the WRC.

I sign the documents provided by the employer at the moment of receiving them, on 10/02/2022, just to confirm their reception, but this doesn’t mean that I agree with every sentence stated by the employer that is contained in them. On the contrary, I repetedly express my rejection, both verbally and in my emails to the employer, and also in the complaints that I address to the WRC showing my strong opposition to my unfair dismissal and all the decisions made by the employer around it, including the dismissal process conditions unilaterally set by the employer and their “goodwill package”, that was full of bad faith.

During the Estate Manager’s visit to make me sign the documents I don’t have any help at all but my partner’s. We don’t have any chance to check the documents carefully, to translate them to our mother language, to seek for professional or union assistance or to even talk to any other employees, as the employer forbids us to do so. We have many other things to take care as we are being suddenly dismissed and taken out of our place of residence in a foreign country. We have to move from Ireland to Spain in a record time, and take all our two year stuff, our car, our motorbike and our two cats with us, fulfilling the active covid-19 movement restrictions.

The employer doesn’t respect the two weeks' notice from 08/02/2022 to 21/02/2022 agreed.

The employer doesn't respect either the notice period set in my work contract, section 7, consisting of one week’s notice pay.

On 11/02/2022 I leave the employer's property and go back to Spain.

On 04/03/2022, 07/03/2022, 09/03/2022 and 11/03/2022 me and my partner and co-worker insist on demanding the employer the pending amounts to be paid.

After my dismissal my position doesn’t cease to exist. Other workers are doing my old tasks, and many new tasks that I could do, for the employer. I am being replaced by other workers, what can be proved by demanding the employer to provide the documents related to the statutory employment records, and the list of tasks of the staff members.

During the hearing, the Complainant outlined payments received from the Respondent during the period January to March 2022. He estimates that the amount he is owed by the Respondent is €2,907.32.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

It is accepted the Complainant was employed by the Respondents on foot of a signed written contract of employment dated 4th August 2020. The Complainant’s employment commenced on the 1st October 2020.

The Complainant’s employment terminated by reason of redundancy on or about the 7th February 2022. The Complainant was selected for redundancy on the basis of “Last in-First out” being the same criteria use by the Respondents for previous redundancies in 2018. Separately there were no alternative roles to suit the Complainant’s skill set within the Respondents’ Estate.

The Complainant had less than 2 years-service with the Respondents and was not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. The Complainant was entitled to receive one week’s notice or pay in lieu which he did. The Respondents offered the Complainant an ex-gratia severance payment. The Complainant signed a severance agreement and took the ex-gratia amounts offered by the Respondents and in addition allowed the respondents pay for his return and the return of his motorbike to Spain by ferry. The Complainant has compromised any and all claims he may have had against the Respondents; the existence of which claims are denied in full.

The Respondents intend putting the Complainant on full proof of all claims being made by him and for the avoidance of doubt deny each and every allegation made against them as if set out in full and denied ad seriatim.

The Respondents had no obligation to pay the Complainant anything beyond what was contained in the severance agreement. The breach of that agreement by the Complainant negated the entire agreement such that the Respondents are entitled to be repaid the entire amounts paid by them to the Complainant, other than one week’s pay in lieu of notice, salary to the date of termination of employment and any accrued but untaken annual leave (all of which were paid). The Respondents will rely on the email dated 23rd March 2022 from the Respondents’ Estate Manager PM to the Complainant setting out the amounts paid to him and in respect of which the Respondents now seek recovery.

The Respondents paid the Complainant approximately €8,050.00 by way of overtime pay between October 2020 and February 2022. Upon investigating the amount of overtime paid during this period, it was discovered by the Respondents that the total amount of overtime claimed by the Complainant was excessive and exaggerated. The alleged work claimed to have been done by the Complainant during these claimed hours of overtime was either

1) not done at all,

2) was work that could have been done in normal hours

3) not completed at all or

4) could have been completed in a significantly shorter amount of time than claimed.

Pending further enquiries, the Respondents reserve the right to assert fraud on the part of the Complainant. In addition, these payments were made to the Complainant without the Respondents deducting PAYE, PRSI and USC. The Respondents have made a formal notification to the Revenue Commissioners of their intention to make a voluntary declaration in respect of undeclared tax. It is estimated the amount of taxes due in respect of overtime paid to the Complainant is €2,300.00 plus interest and penalties. The Respondents intend recovering the total taxes due to Revenue in respect of overtime from the Complainant either by way of set-off or otherwise as they may be advised.

Unfair Dismissal Claim CA-00050734-001

The Respondents deny the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. The Complainant’s employment was terminated by reason of redundancy in the following circumstances.

The Complainant was originally employed from 1st October 2020. The Respondents own Estate. At the time of the Complainant’s employment the Respondents were unable to travel to the Estate due to extensive Covid restrictions imposed by the Irish Government and also other governments. The Respondents were concerned with the welfare of their three dogs at the Estate who were very important to the family. They were very anxious to ensure their dogs were fed, watered, walked, exercised and cared for as a primary objective of employment. The Respondents employed the Complainant under a written contract of employment which included the morning and afternoon walking the dogs. The Complainant was also responsible for their feeding and welfare while employed by the Respondents.

Due to a restructuring of the Respondents (household) estate requirements the Complainant’s employment was terminated by reason of redundancy with effect from 7th February 2022. The restructuring arose in the context of the Respondents being able to resume greater residency at the Estate (as Covid restrictions in Ireland and elsewhere were eased.) and as the Respondent moved her residency to Ireland post covid restrictions in Ireland and elsewhere. The Respondents had been unable to use the premises during (much) the latter half of Covid. Now that she was to spend significantly more time at the Estate the Respondents did not require to employ someone to have primary responsibility for minding the Respondents dogs.

The Respondents and their Estate Manager PM engaged with the Complainant on or about the 7th of February 2022 at 11am and advised him that his employment was ceasing due to redundancy. The Respondents advised the Complainant that he would be paid his accrued entitlements and would be paid in lieu of notice etc. The Respondents advised the Complainant he would be paid an additional ex-gratia amount in settlement and on the basis he was a good leaver and also on the basis he vacated the Ferryman cottage by the 11th February 2022. The Respondents also advised the Complainant they would pay for the ferry to Spain for him and his motorbike. The Respondents’ offer amounted to one month salary of €2,426.00 on departure from the Ferryman’s cottage, one week’s pay in lieu of notice, cost of Ferry travel to Spain and one month salary €2,462.00 to be paid on the expiration of 6 months from the employment termination date provided the Complainant was a good leaver.

The Complainant signed a severance agreement on the 10th of February 2022. The Complainant employment terminated by reason of redundancy and by mutual agreement on the 7th of February 2022.

The total amount paid by the Respondents to the Complainant under the Severance Agreement is €5,456.64 being the full amount due at this time less €210 withheld by the Respondents due to the failure of the Complainant to “pack up and leave the Ferryman’s in a clean and tidy state”, which was an express written condition of the severance agreement.

The Good Leaver payment of €2,426.00 under the severance agreement was due to be paid on or about the 11th August 2022 but due to the breach of agreement by the Complainant will not be paid by the Respondents.

In summary the Complainant employment with the Respondents was terminated by reason of redundancy. The Complainant was selected on the “last in- First Out” principle which had been previously employed by the Respondents. Separately there were no alternative roles suitable the Complainant’s skill set. Notwithstanding that the Complainant had no legal entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment or any entitlement beyond his notice and accrued amounts to date of termination the Respondents offered the Complainant an ex-gratia severance package which the Complainant accepted. Any claim the Claimant may have had (which is denied) has been compromised.

In the event the Adjudicating Officer finds that there was an Unfair Dismissal of the Complainant then the Respondents request that the Claimant be ordered to repay the payments made to the Complainant by the Respondents and/or give the Respondents credit for those payments made to the Complainant.

The Complainant has failed to mitigate his loss and is at no financial loss and the Respondents request the Adjudicating Officer not to award any compensation due to the failure to mitigate loss.

Payment of Wages Act 1991 CA-00050734-004

The Respondents made a deduction of €210.00 from the Complainants final pay as the Complainant failed to leave the Ferryman in a clean and tidy state. 

The written contract of employment expressly provides that the Respondent is entitled to deduct any money due to them. In those circumstances the deduction is permitted by Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

The Respondent requests the Adjudicating Officer to determine that this complaint is not well founded.

Payment of Wages Act 1991 – CA-00050734-005 

The Respondents await proof of this claim as it makes no sense as presented by the Complainant. For the avoidance of doubt the Respondent denies all liability to the Complainant under this claim.

The Respondent requests the Adjudicating Officer to determine that this complaint is not well founded.

Payment of Wages Act 1991 CA-00050734-006 

The Complainants employment with the Respondent was terminated by reason of redundancy. The Complainant had less than 2 years-service with the Respondents and was not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. The Complainant was entitled to receive one week’s notice or pay in lieu which he did. The Respondents offered the Complainant an ex-gratia severance payment, which he agreed to and signed on the 10th February 2022.

The Respondent requests the Adjudicating Officer to determine that this complaint is not well founded.

Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 CA-00050734-007  

The claim made by the Complainant is not capable of comprehension. It is confused and non-sensical. The Claimant was paid all amounts due to him.

The Respondent requests the Adjudicating Officer to determine that this complaint is not well founded.

Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 CA-00050734-008

The Complainant was provided with a written contract of employment that set out his hours of work. The Complainant was required to work 5 days a week Monday to Friday. His hours were 08.30am to 16.30 with a paid one-hour break during the working day. This break was typically taken as two half hour breaks during the course of a working day. The actual working time for the purposes of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 is accordingly 35 hours a week and not 40 hours as alleged by the Complainant.

The Respondent has provided the Complainant with all rest breaks required under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, and actively encouraged the use of annual leave and the need to regularly plan holidays.

The Respondents request that the Adjudicating Officer find that the complaint is not well founded.

Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 – CA-00050734-009  

The Respondents deny that they provided the Complainant with a statement of his core terms of employment that “deliberately contains false or misleading information” as alleged by the Complainant or at all. The Respondents reject the allegation and the unnecessarily inflammatory language used to express the allegation. The Respondents put the Complainant on strict legal proof of deliberate falsification by the Respondents.

The Respondents will rely on the written contract of employment dated 1st October 2020 signed by the Complainant.

The provision of accommodation was not a contractual term of the Complainant’s employment. Accommodation was provided by the Respondents on a grace and favour basis at the Respondents discretion and the Complainant was allowed use it and share it with his girlfriend.

The Respondents request the Adjudicating Officer to determine that this complaint is not well founded.

The Estate Manager gave sworn evidence on the daily breaks and weekly rest issues.  He stated that typically, daily breaks on the Estate were availed of between 10am and 10.30am and 1pm and 1.30pm.  The Complainant was not required to work 7 days a week.  There was an exceptionally busy time on 4th and 5th September 2021 when all staff had to work the week-end due to the Blackwater Valley Opera Festival.  This was an exception rather than the norm. 

The email from the Estate Manager to the Complainant of settlement terms was also provided prior to the hearing.

Email from Estate Manager to Complainant post termination: (March 2022):

Strancally agreed as sign of good will to pay you an Ex Gratia payment of one month’s gross salary……€2426.66 (paid on the 18th, February, 2022 and not subject to tax)

You are owed the overtime accrued from 1st January up until the 7th of February 2022. By your calculations this came to 23 hour @ €14 per hour……€322

It was agreed that Strancally would cover the cost of the ferry for your return to Spain…..€140

A payment was made on 15th, March 2022 to you of €216. This payment was made up of your travel and overtime. I unfortunately made a mistake and as a result you were under paid.

Overtime….. €322

Travel ………. €140 

Total………….€462

Less ………….. €210 for cleaning/ laundry charge for Ferryman’s cottage

Total ………….€252

Under payment of payment of €36

You are entitled to a statutory two weeks’ notice period from the date (7th February) Therefore your pay slip shows employment up till 21st February. This amount of €1680 is subject to tax in the normal way and included in your final pay slip

You are entitled to be paid the holiday accrued from the 1st, January 2022 until the 21st February (excluding overtime). This is calculated at 8% of the hours worked @ €14 per hour… €210.56 is subject to tax in the normal way and included in your final pay slip I will transfer your final nett payment of €1634.03 plus the under payment of €36 today.

It was also agreed that a further payment of €2426.66 would be made six months from the date of leaving. This date is the 11th of August 2022(subject to being a good leaver)

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00050734-001           Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

The Complainant was told on 7th February 2022 that his position was being made redundant.   It is common case that he received no prior notice of this and was not given an opportunity to be heard or appeal.  In the circumstances, his complaint is upheld.  He stated at the hearing that he was unemployed for two years.  He provided no evidence of mitigation of loss of earnings.  I note that the Respondent has paid the Complainant an ex-gratia payment of one month’s salary.                                Based on the fact that there was no process followed in making him redundant, I find his complaint to be well founded.  As re-instatement or re-engagement are not appropriate remedies, I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €2,426 compensation.  This is separate from and in addition to the ex-gratia payment.

CA-00050734-004           Payment of Wages Act 1991

In the payment for overtime and expenses on 15th March 2022, there was a deduction of €210 for cleaning the cottage the Complainant occupied.  In the definition of wages in the Act, expenses are expressly not included.  However, as overtime is included in the definition, I am considering this deduction.

Section 5 of the Act provides:

Section 5 (2) of the Act provides that an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of any act or omission of the employee, unless the deduction is required to be made by virtue of a term in the contract of employment and before the time of the act or omission, the employee has been furnished in writing at least one week in advance.  The evidence shows that the Complainant was notified of the deduction after it was made.

I find the complaint to be well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €210.

CA-00050734-005           Payment of Wages Act 1991

This complaint contains the following claim on the complaint form:

Wages:                              €1,556.76

Holiday pay:                     €311.67

Minimum Notice:            €1,038.89

The evidence adduced at the hearing, and in prior written submissions demonstrates that amounts exceeding wages properly payable were paid by the Respondent to the Complainant on 18th February 2022, including two week’s pay in lieu of minimum notice.  For clarity, it should be noted that the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973 provides that the minimum notice to be given to an employee with less than two years’ service in one week.

I find this complaint to be not well founded.

CA-00050734-006           Payment of Wages Act 1991

The complaint on the complaint form details many payments and alleged shortfalls of payment according to the Complainant.  The Complaint form says this complaint is for appropriate payment in lieu of notice.  This complaint therefore is a duplicate of CA-00050734-005.  As found, the Complainant received in excess of the statutory minimum notice.  I find the complaint to be not well founded.

CA-00050734-007           Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The complaint is that contrary to Section 15 of the Act, the Complainant was required to work more than the maximum hours permitted.  He submitted that based on overtime and regular hours for the period September to December 2021 he worked 50 hours per week.

Section 15 of the Act provides:

“15.-(1) An employer must not permit an employee to work, in each period of 7 days, more than an average of 48 hours, that is to say an average of 48 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a “reference period”) that does not exceed –

(a) 4 months…”

The complaint was received on 20th May 2022.  The cognisable period as provided for in Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 is from 21st November 2021. 

I have reviewed the information provided and find no breach of the Act in relation to the relevant period.  I do not find the complainant’s complaint to be well founded.

CA-00050734-008           Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The complaint is that contrary to Section 13 of the Act, the Complainant was required to work without being given 24 hours rest period in each period of 7 days.  He stated that this was a regular feature of his employment and gave the example that during the month of September 2021 he was required to work 7 days a week.

Section 13 of the Act provides:

“13-(2) Subject to subsection (3) an employee shall, in each period of 7 days, be granted a rest period of at least 24 consecutive hours…”

I accept the sworn evidence given by the Estate Manager regarding the normal working hours, rest periods, breaks and overtime worked by the Complainant.   Typically, he would be paid overtime to walk the dogs.  During the week-end of 4th and 5th September when the Blackwater Valley Opera Festival was on, all staff were required to work the week-end and were paid overtime.

The complaint was received on 20th May 2022. The cognisable period as provided for in Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 is from 21st November 2021. 

I have considered the evidence and find no general breach of Section 13 of the Act.  The period highlighted, early September, is not covered by the cognisable period.  I find the complaint to be not well founded.

CA-00050734-009           Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (as amended)

The complaint is that the Complainant received a statement of his core terms of employment which contained deliberately false and misleading information.  In his statements he referred to occupation of the accommodation and working hours.

Section 7 of the Act provides that a decision of the Adjudication Officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 is made “in relation to a complaint of contravention of section 3, 4, 5, 6, 6C , 6D, 6E, 6F, or 6G.”  

Section 6B of the Act states inter alia that:

“6B. – (2) An employer who deliberately provides false or misleading information to an employee, or who is reckless as to whether or not false or misleading information is provided, as part of the statement required by section 3(1A), shall be guilty of an offence.”

Notably, a decision of an Adjudication Officer cannot be made under section 6B of the Act.                              I have no jurisdiction in this matter and find the complaint to be not well founded.

Decision:

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.

CA-00050734-001           Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

For the reasons outlined, I have decided that the complaint is well founded.  I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €2,426 compensation. 

CA-00050734-004           Payment of Wages Act 1991

For the reasons outlined, I have decided that the complaint is well founded, and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €210.

CA-00050734-005           Payment of Wages Act 1991

For the reasons outlined, I have decided the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00050734-006           Payment of Wages Act 1991

For the reasons outlined, I have decided the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00050734-007           Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

For the reasons outlined, I have decided the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00050734-008           Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

For the reasons outlined, I have decided the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00050734-009           Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (as amended)

For the reasons outlined, I have decided the complaint is not well founded.

Dated:   05/07/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: