Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048581
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Lavinia Cornally | Nelipak Healthcare Packaging Europe Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Self-represented | Joan Gover, Senior HRM |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00059342-001 | 11/10/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/03/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant and one witness undertook to give their evidence under affirmation. Three witnesses for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that she was being penalised for something she was accused of in the wrong. She noted that she was not suspended but was no longer allowed shift changes unless it was upon medical grounds. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent noted that shift changes were facilitated. |
Findings and Conclusions:
At the start of the hearing, the complainant noted that she was penalised when she was wrongly accused of being part of an incident. The adjudicator sought to ascertain under what Act she was putting forward a penalisation case. The complainant confirmed that she was not putting forward a penalisation/victimisation compliant under any of the 28 options open to her but noted that she had an issue with the grievance procedure. It was noted that the narrative completed in the compliant form does not reveal any penalisation under the Organisation of Working Time Act, nor under any of the other pieces of employment legislation with the ambit of the Workplace Relations Commission. In the circumstances I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Having regard to the complainant’s written and oral evidence, my decision is that the compliant is not well founded. |
Dated: 07/03/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Organisation of Working Time Act – penalisation – not well founded |