ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00059357
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sara Shelby | Apcoa Parking Ireland |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives |
| Peter Dunlea Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
Complaints:
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-00072184-001 | 06/06/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/11/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 an employee can present a complaint or complaints of any perceived contravention by the Employer of any of the Acts (Statutes) contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015. Any such complaint (usually presented in the format of a workplace relations complaint form) is made to the Director General of the WRC. The said Director General can then refer the complaint to the Adjudication services. It is in these circumstances that this matter has come before me - an Adjudication Officer engaged by the Adjudication division of the WRC - to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or complaints made. Where appropriate, I hear the parties’ oral evidence, and I can give consideration to any supporting evidence provided by witnesses or relevant documentation.
In this instance, the Complainant has referred a single complaint for adjudication as provided for under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 in circumstances where a Contract of Service has commenced and where the said Employee employed by an Employer is entitled to have been provided (within two months of the commencement of the employee’s employment with the employer) with a Statement of certain Terms of the employment.
The Complainant has made a complaint that her Employer has not provided her with a reasoned reply to her request for employment with more predictable and secure working conditions within one month of my request. This is a complaint set out in Section 6(F) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 concerning the transition to another form of employment. The Section reads as follows:-
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.
The complaint was made on the 6th of June 2025, and I can consider such contravention of the Act which is alleged to have occurred in the six-month period immediately prior to that date. The Complainant was in employment from the 15th of November 2024 to the 21st of May 2025.
In circumstances where I consider the complaint to be well founded, I may require a Statement of Terms be provided. In addition, I am entitled to direct a payment of compensation up to the value of four weeks remuneration such that is just and equitable in all the circumstances.
Background:
This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.
In line with the coming into effect of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 on the 29th of July 2021, I can confirm that the witnesses herein were required to give their evidence on oath or affirmation. This was done in anticipation of the fact that there may have been a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to the complaint. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.
The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 6th of June 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was not represented. The Complainant had received the Respondent submission and was aware that the complaint lodged with the WRC did not line up with the narrative she had set out in the workplace relations complaint form. Despite this, I was happy to hear the Complainant’s account of her employment as it was clear that she felt strongly about the issues she had raised. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. I was provided with some supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making her case. The Complainant alleges that she tendered her resignation in circumstances where she had become anxious about what was expected of her in her role and that she additionally felt unsupported in the carrying out of her functions. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was represented by Peninsula. One witness CK – the Contracts Manager – attended on behalf of the Employer and to give evidence in defence of the employer. The Respondent provided me with a written submissions dated the 20th of November 2025. The submission included the following assertion: 5.The respondent submits that the present claim is misfiled. 6. It is accepted by the respondent that the complainant in the present matter raised a number of concerns of health and safety during the course of her employment. 7. The complainant in the present matter however never raised a request regarding more predictable and secure working conditions. 8. The respondent notes that the complainant has raised her concerns regarding health and safety with the HSA. 9. The respondent would note that the complainant has not raised a valid complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. 10. As the present complaint is misjudged this claim should be dismissed The Respondent has acknowledged that the Complainant raised reports in the course of her Employment but does not recognise or accept that it has contravened any section of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. The Respondent was happy for me to hear the issues that brought the Complainant before the WRC. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully listened to the Complainant’s account of her employment with the Respondent Company. The Complainant was engaged as a parking warden to work in the town of Arklow. The employment commenced in November of 2024. The Complainant’s job was to give parking tickets where persons had parked illegally. I can fully accept that the job came with a risk factor. There is no doubt that members of the public can occasionally get very irate when they receive a parking ticket. There is this constant need by some people to justify why they parked in such a way and/or reject the correctness of the issuing of a ticket. I can readily accept that his can sometimes get hostile. The Complainant clearly felt vulnerable after a series of these interactions occurred between her and angry ticket recipients from February to May of 2025. The Complainant says she reported up to five such incidents to her line Manager over this period of time. The Complainant says that she felt that the reporting of such incidents did not appear to generate a reaction and fell, instead, on deaf ears. The Complainant agreed that she did not take the matter up with anyone other than her line Manager. She never, for example, reached out to HR. Nor did she talk to CK the Contracts Manager. The Complainant very fairly did concede in her evidence that her Employer may not have been aware of the impact that these abusive situations had had on her. Mr. Kelly on behalf of the Company indicated that preliminary training should cover conflict resolution and confrontation avoidance to help a new warden fully understand how to handle such situations. It is not clear if the Complainant had that training. If she did, it was certainly inadequate. The Employer representative CK said that the Employer had taken the matter very seriously when the Complainant lodged her complaint. Prior to that, they had had no inkling that the Complainant was afraid to perform her duties. CK went on to say that there has been a root and branch examination of this issue, and the Company has stepped up its training in conflict resolution which now takes place a few times a year and not just as part of a probation package. The Complainant was happy to hear this was now happening. The Complainant agrees that she at no time had she requested a form of employment with more predictable and secure working conditions. Consequently, she had not not received a reasoned written reply from her employer in response to such a request.The Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 is not applicable herein.
|
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. CA-00072184-001 – The complaint herein is not well founded and fails.
|
Dated: 04th of December 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|