ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046162
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Stacey Lyons | Merit Pharmaceuticals |
Representatives |
| Michelle Arkins |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00057057-001 | 09/06/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00057057-002 | 09/06/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/12/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
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 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 worked for the Respondent from October 2019 as a Quality Controller.
Before she started in her role she was issued with a job offer email. This contained some of the key details of her employment. However, she never got a contract.
When she returned form Maternity Leave in May 2023. At this point she discovered there were changes to her role which she was unhappy with.
She raised two complaints under the terms of employment information act. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation. She went through in detail how her role appeared to change when she returned to work following her maternity leave. The Respondent had a vacancy for a promotion but it was full time so she couldn’t go for it. Her role was related to quality assurance. She was not a quality manager. However when she returned her duties appeared to have changed and much of the quality assurance role had been taken away from her. She believes that this constituted a change to her terms and conditions of employment for which she received no written statement. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent accepted it failed to furnish the Complainant with a written statement setting out all of the required particulars of her employment. However they did set out most of the key details in writing when she took up the job and the employee handbook was available to her in the office. The Respondent’s CEO Gerard Nugent gave evidence under affirmation. Following Covid and a number of other keys shifts in the business the Respondent decided that it would in source and hire a Quality Manager. Much of the regulatory functions related to that role were previously provided by a consultant. The Complainant didn’t want this role and a colleague of hers did and got it. They were happy to promote in house. When the Complainant returned from Maternity Leave she expressed concern about how her role had changed but she then went on sick leave and resigned before they could address her concerns. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00057057-001 It is common case that the Complainant was not given a written statement of terms of employment as required by Section 3 of the Act. CA-00057057-002 Notification of changes. Section 5 of the Act provides that 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. Section 5 only requires a notification of change of the particulars required by the act. One of these is the title of the job or nature of the work for which the employee is employed. The Complainant was provided with a job title and it does not seem that this changed. Some of the duties related to her role did appear to change but because she resigned so soon after coming back it is not clear whether these changes would have been substantial. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00057057-001 The complaint is well founded I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €700 in compensation. CA-00057057-002 The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 2nd May 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|