ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058301
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Gizem Artan | Pan Jewelry Limited |
Representatives |
| Ms. Kate Dillon, Whitney Moore |
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-00070878-001 | 16/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/06/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
On the 16 April 2025 the Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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. The Complainant submitted extensive documentation prior to hearing.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski V Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24, the parties were informed in advance of the hearing that the hearing would normally be in public, testimony under oath or affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. At the adjudication hearing, the parties were advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (miscellaneous provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the WRC are now held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised. The parties were also advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation. In the circumstances described under the heading “Findings” there was no opportunity to administer and oath or affirmation.
For ease of reference the generic terms of Complainant and Respondent are used throughout the text of this decision.
The Complainant attended the hearing and was unrepresented.
The Respondent was represented at hearing by Ms. Kate Dillon, Solicitor, Whitney Moore and Ms. Diana Baxter, HR Business partner attended on behalf of the Respondent.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Store Manager with the Respondent from the 18 March 2024. She contended that her employer had not provided her with a reasoned reply to her request for employment with more predictable and secure working conditions within one month of her request.
The Respondent advised it was unable to respond to the complaint in the absence of clarity in relation to the complaint and in the context that it was not aware of any request for more predictable working hours.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In her complaint form, the Complainant alleged that the employer had not provided her with a reasoned reply to her request for employment with more predictable and secure working conditions within one month of her request.
She set out the specifics of that complaint as follows: · That she had worked for the Respondent for just over a year as a Store Manager, · That she was hired by the line manager and the Area Manager · That she had been lied to about commission · That her line manager kept lying to her for more than 8 months · That she opened an investigation with the HR team · That the investigation was completed in 8 weeks · That there was miscommunication and the outcome by the Respondent was “the things I haven’t even said or it didn’t even happen”
She further alleged that during the investigation she was threatened in person, received virus links to her work email and learned that there were 2 accidental deaths in the company, and 30 million GBP lost since 2019. She confirmed that the issue had gone to the Head of Sales Operation Manager and that the Respondent brought “mandatory sexual harassment, data protection training during her investigation. She further advised that the Respondent had changed everything in relation to Health & safety even though there was no Health & safety Department actively working.
She stated that she had more than 50 emails with “proof of this continued abuse” for the last 3 months but that after the investigation her line manager is still working and continued to abuse her. She also stated that she would like to get professional support and seek her rights as the Respondent didn’t pay her commissions, acted against her well-being for months and that even though she would like to continue to work for the Brand, they hadn’t stopped abusing people at work.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent advised it was unable to respond to the complaint in the absence of clarity in relation to the complaint and in the context that it was not aware of any request for more predictable working hours.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
I have given careful consideration to the submissions provided, supporting documentation and information given at hearing.
In her complaint form, the Complainant alleged that she was not provided with a reasoned reply to her request for employment with more predictable and secure working conditions within one month of her request. However, the substance of her complaint related to other grievances within the Respondent company.
At the outset of the hearing, I sought to clarify with the Complaint if she had, in fact, made a request to the Respondent for more predictable and secure working conditions. The Complainant clarified that she had not and that she had a full time, permanent contract with defined hours of work. At that point the Complainant became upset and stated that she was leaving the hearing.
The Respondent confirmed that it had not received any request and further confirmed the hours of work and contractual arrangements with the Complainant.
Although I did not have the opportunity to administer an oath or affirmation, nonetheless, it was common case that no request had been made in accordance with the legislation and both parties confirmed the contractual arrangements.
In all the circumstances, I must find that this 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.
I have found that this complaint is not well founded and I decide accordingly. |
Dated: 13-08-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
Terms of employment |