Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Laszlo  Vanyai

Dunnes Stores

Representatives

Self-represented

Owen Keany, BL, instructed by Byrne Wallace LLP

Act

Complaint 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-00064060-001

12/06/2024

Mr. Vanyai, the complainant, has been employed by the respondent as a Sales Assistant from 18th November 2022. He initially worked part-time hours. He then applied to work full-time hours (37.5 hrs.), and he commenced full-time on 6th November 2023.

In January/February 2024, he requested to go back to part-time hours. He then made a formal request on 10th May 2024 to go back to part-time.

As he received no immediate response, he made a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) which was received on 12th June 2024.

His complaint is that he was not provided with a reasoned reply to his request for more predictable and secure working conditions within one month of his request.

Summary of Complainant’s Evidence

Mr Vanyai outlined his employment history with the respondent. After commencing work on a part-time basis, he applied for full-time hours. He was facilitated and commenced full-time on 6th November 2023.  As he was not granted his full 37.5 hours, he raised this with the Human Resources Manager in January/February 2024. This was resolved for one week and then his hours became unpredictable again.

On 10th May 2024, he formally requested to revert to part-time hours. He sent a message to the respondent stating- ‘Sorry for disturbing, today I dropped notice for HR I would like back to part time contract.’ As there was no response, he referred his complaint to the WRC.

The complainant was cross-examined on the hours he worked since he commenced employment. He confirmed that his original contract was 15-25 hours, and this then increased to full-time hours of 37.5 from 6th November 2023. He confirmed that as he had a shortfall of hours, he was compensated for these. He confirmed that after a meeting in July 2024, he was facilitated to revert to part-time hours.

It was put to him that when he took up full-time hours in November 2023 that his situation was more predictable and secure as he had a guarantee of a minimum of 37.5 hours per week. He replied that financially he had been better off on a part-time contract and another reason was for travel arrangements as his wife also worked for the respondent.    

The respondent representative submitted that in November 2023, the complainant was facilitated with more predictable and secure working conditions when he was facilitated to work full-time. It was submitted that his request to revert to part-time in May 2024 would not have resulted in more predictable and secure working conditions.

It was further submitted that the complainant had made two requests within 12 months for more predictable and secure working conditions. The Act per section 6F (2), only permitted for one request within the 12-month period. It was submitted that as the first request was in November 2023 that the complaint is out of time.

The final submission was that the nature of the claim was not in line with Directive 2019/1152, Recital 36 which included a specific reference of worker rights to more secure forms of employment.

The Law

Transition to another form of employment

6F.— (1) Subject to subsection (2), an employee who has been in the continuous service of an employer for not less than 6 months and who has completed his or her probationary period, if any, may request a form of employment with more predictable and secure working conditions where available and receive a reasoned written reply from his or her employer.

(2) An employee may, once in any 12-month period, request a form of employment in accordance with subsection (1).

(3) An employer shall provide the reasoned written reply referred to in subsection (1) to an employee within one month of the request by the employee.

(4) An employer may provide an oral reply where a subsequent similar request is submitted by the same worker where the situation of the worker remains unchanged.

(5) This section shall not apply to seafarers or sea fishermen.

Applying the Law to the Facts of the Case

The complainant had the relevant service to request more predictable and secure working conditions. He went from part-time to full-time in November 2023. He then requested formally on 10th May 2024 to revert to part-time although he previously requested this in January/February 2024.

Leaving aside that there may have been two requests within 12 months, there is the question of whether the most recent request was for ‘a form of employment with more predictable and secure working conditions….’

The complainant requested to revert to part-time having already previously gone from part-time to full-time. Section 6F of the Act is a relatively new section which was inserted at the end of 2022. The respondent representative submitted that the new addition has its origins in the European Directive     2019/1152 on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union and particularly citation 36 as below-

(36) Where employers have the possibility to offer full-time or open-ended employment contracts to workers in nonstandard forms of employment, a transition to more secure forms of employment should be promoted in accordance with the principles established in the European Pillar of Social Rights. Workers should be able to request another more predictable and secure form of employment, where available, and receive a reasoned written response from the employer, which takes into account the needs of the employer and of the worker. Member States should have the possibility to limit the frequency of such requests.

Based on the ordinary meaning of the words ‘predictable and secure’ in the Act and the purpose of the EU Directive on rights of more security along with the complaint having already taken up full-time employment, I decide that the request of 10th May 2024 for part-time work was not a request for more predictable and secure employment. The request was not in line with the wording or purpose of section 6F of the Act as it involved a decrease from 37.5 hours to part-time hours.

Also, given that the complainant went from part-time to full-time previously, it would be too onerous for the respondent to be on notice to respond within one month when the request was to return to a part-time contract. The respondent could not have been on alert that the clock was ticking on a possible breach of the Act. Although, if the complainant always been full-time and seeking part-time, there may have been more of an onus on the respondent as per the Code of Practice on Flexible Working.

For the reasons outlined, I find that the Act has not been breached. I decide that the complaint is not well founded.

I decide that the complaint is not well founded.

Terms of Employment