Complainant

Respondent

Parties

David  O'Farrell

Counter Products Marketing (Irl) Ltd t/a CPM

Representatives

Self-Represented assisted by a close relative.

Company Managers, Ms M Florczyk and Ms Fitzmaurice.

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-00063296-003

03/05/2024

The issue in contention was an allegation that the Respondent Employer had not provided Training Free of Charge and or the Training was not counted as Working hours and should not have taken place outside of recognized Working Hours. This was alleged to be in contravention of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

It was stated by the Complainant that the employment as a Business Development Executive began on the 12th February 2019 and continues.

The rate of pay was monthly at a gross of €2,166 for a stated average of a 47 hour week. The weekly hours figure was contested by the Respondent Employer.

The Responder Employer is a large Business Support Organisation in the Retail Sector.

At the start of the Hearing it was made clear that the Adjudicator could only address issues raised specifically by the relevant legislation,  in this case the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

The Complainant was Self Represented. He presented much copy E mail traffic in evidence and gave a substantial oral testimony.

On questioning regarding specific details he stated that his Manual Handling Certificate, absolutely required for his job, had expired on the 12th October 2023. The Respondent employer made  no realistic efforts to Refresh this Certificate. In addition, he stated that the Respondent Employer had the practice of expecting Employees to do on line Training Courses Outside of Hours. The work load was so onerous that no employee could physically find time in their days for the Training Sessions.

The Employer was clearly in breach of the Act.

The Respondent was represented by two Senior Managers who gave extensive oral testimony supported by a written Submission. It was stated in the oral testimony ,from the outset, that the Complainant had failed to specify any detailed or specific complaint regarding Training. Wide ranging Allegations were not supported by any evidence.

It was agreed that the Manual Handling Certificate had expired on the 12th October 2023. A refresher Course was scheduled for the Complainant on the 8th December 2023 ( which he failed to attend) and on the 11th April 2024 ( albeit the Complainant was on Sick leave at this April time). 

In relation to other allegations regarding “Out of Hours” requirements for Training this was completely denied. The Company has clear Training policies in the Employee Handbook . All Training is provided at no cost to Employees and is expected to be carried out in normal working time.  Paid Time is allowed for this purpose.

All things considered ,the Respondent view was that they had no case to answer in regard to the Act and especially Section 6G.

It has to be stated that this complaint CA-00063296-003 is a lesser part of two Industrial Relations Act,1969 complaints being taken in parallel.

3:1        The Law;

Section 6G of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

Mandatory training

6G.— Where an employer is required by law or by a collective agreement to provide training to an employee to carry out the work for which he or she is employed, such training shall —

(a) be provided to the employee free of cost,

(b) count as working time, and

(c) where possible, take place during working hours.

3:2        Discussion and Consideration

The evidence pointed to a situation where most Training and Refresher Training took place “on line”.  Obviously Manual Handling has to be an exception and requires a physical Instructor. The gap in the Manual Handling Certificate from 12th October 2023  to 8th December 2023 was not best Management practice.

The other allegations in regard to Training were too non-specific and lacking in concrete examples to base a case upon.

3:3       Conclusion

Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 requires at Subsection 7(2) (d) that

d) in relation to a complaint of a contravention under change [ section 3, 4, 5, 6, 6D, 6E, 6F, or 6G, ] and without prejudice to any order made under paragraph (e)] order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

A very minor infraction of the Act at Section 6G could be argued here. However, in overall terms Section 6G is complied with by the Respondent in terms of the Manual Handling Training being free of cost, is regarded as paid working time and is scheduled to take place during working hours.

The Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994  does not provide sanctions for “Gaps” in Mandatory Training as happened in this case.

Accordingly, the strict legal interpretation has to be that the complaint cannot be seen as “Well Founded” as per Section 7(2) and has to be deemed to be without a proper basis.

In precise legal terms it fails

Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, Access to Training