CORRECTION ORDER
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054270
Issued Pursuant to Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015
This Order corrects the original Decision ADJ-00054270, issued on January 27th 2025. This is to correct an error at paragraph 5 on page 3 which states that the complainant was required to work for 20 hours every week. It is correct to say that she was required to work for 20 hours every two weeks. The Order is also to correct an error in the same paragraph which states that the complainant worked for an average of 30 hours each week. It is correct to say that she worked for an average of 30 hours every two weeks.
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Wanpin Cai | Purple Acorn Limited |
Representatives | Self-represented | Represented by Managers |
Complaint:
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-00066414-002 | 01/10/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 | CA-00066414-003 | 01/10/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/01/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, these complaints were assigned to me by the Director General. I conducted a hearing on January 17th 2025, at which I made enquiries and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaints. The complainant, Ms Wanpin Cai, attended the hearing alone and she represented herself. Purple Acorn Limited was represented by the business owner, Mr Mark Sheedy and the manager, Ms Anne Marie Waters. While the parties are named in this decision, for the remainder of this document, I will refer to Ms Cai as “the complainant” and to Purple Acorn Limited as “the respondent.”
Background:
The respondent trades as Caremark and has a contract with the HSE to provide care to people with disabilities and elderly people in their own homes. They have around 150 employees and they provide 3,300 hours of care to clients every week. Employees must be trained in accordance with HSE regulations and the respondent said that they deliver this training to their employees. They have an agreement with the employees that, if they leave the company in the first eight months of their employment, €60 will be deducted from their final weekly pay. The complainant is a Chinese national and, in China, she works as a senior product manager. She came to Ireland to do further study and she commenced working with the respondent on May 27th 2024. Her contract provides that she is required to work a minimum of two hours per day between Monday and Sunday. In September 2024, she commenced on a Masters degree and she informed her co-ordinator in Caremark that she could only work on Sundays. I understand from the respondent’s witnesses that the co-ordinator asked her to work on Saturdays and Sundays, but the outcome of the conversation was that the complainant resigned. At the hearing, she said that she isn’t working at present, but at the close of proceedings, she said that she is exploring on LinkedIn the possibility of a product manager role. Under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the complainant said that she is upset about the fact that €60 was deducted from her second last payslip. I understand from the evidence of the manager, Ms Waters said that the complainant’s final payslip included her outstanding holiday pay and that the €60 was deducted from her final wages which was recorded on her second last payslip. Under the heading of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work Act) 2001, the complainant claims that the respondent pays part-time employees like her less than full-time employees. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00066414-002: Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 In her evidence, the complainant said that, when she was issued with her written contract, she asked her employer about the provision that stated that, if she left the company before the expiry of eight months, she would have to pay her employer €60. She said that she was instructed to “just sign” the contract and that the employer “would not really charge me.” For the respondent, Ms Waters said that the company is required to provide training to their employees, and that they have many new starters every week. Sometimes people find that the work isn’t suitable, but they receive certified training, which is helpful for seeking work with a different employer. Ms Waters said that the complainant signed her agreement to the deduction of €60 if she left her job before eight months was up. However, as a gesture of good will, Ms Waters said that the €60 was refunded to the complainant. The complainant was annoyed that the €60 was refunded after she submitted this complaint to the WRC on October 1st 2024. Having considered this matter, it is clear to me that this complaint is not about a breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, but that it is a claim about a deduction from wages. I am satisfied that there has been no illegal deduction from the complainant’s wages and that she has received all the wages to which she is entitled. While she made no reference to this issue on her complaint form, at the hearing, the complainant said that her contract provides that she is required to work a minimum of two hours a day. She complained that, on four days, she was rostered for just one hour a day. Ms Waters agreed that the complainant was rostered for one hour on four days. She referred to the complainant’s contract of employment which states that, “The company reasonably expects to provide you with a minimum of 2 hours per day over 5-7 days per week. However, these days, start and finish times will vary in accordance with the weekly / fortnightly roster. You may be required to work additional hours above those rostered when authorised and necessitate by the needs of the business. Details of your weekly working hours will be given to you at least 24 hours in advance of the working week, however, due to the nature of the business, your roster may be amended or changed during the working week.” Ms Waters said that rosters are subject to change because a client may be admitted to hospital or may have some other form of homecare provided to them. She said that the respondent’s obligation was to provide the complainant with a minimum of 20 hours’ work every two weeks. The payslips that Ms Waters presented at the hearing show that the complainant worked around 30 hours every two weeks. Having considered this complaint, I am satisfied that there was no breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 in relation to the complainant’s working hours. CA-00066414-003: Complaint under Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work Act) 2001 At the hearing, the complainant alleged that she was paid less than full-time employees. Ms Waters explained that employees with certain qualifications such as FETAC level 5 or a Degree in Social Care, and employees with several years of experience are paid more than employees with no experience. She said that the rate of pay is not conditional on whether an employee is full-time or part-time. I accept the respondent’s evidence that there is a variation in the rate of pay to reflect the experience and qualifications of employees and I find that there has been no breach of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work Act) 2001. Conclusion I have listened carefully to the complainant and I heard her version of events when she was working with the respondent and it is apparent that she was upset by her experience. I find however, that her grievance is rooted in a misunderstanding of the legislation and perhaps cultural differences between Ireland and China and her isolation in a foreign country. At the hearing, the respondent’s representatives acknowledged this. Ms Waters pointed out that the complainant received excellent results in her training courses and that she was a very good care worker and that she did her job well. Ms Waters apologised sincerely to the complainant for any upset caused by her experience of working with the company. I am satisfied that there was no breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 or the Part-time Work Act. I accept Ms Waters’ apology. I am satisfied that there has been no breach of the legislation referred to above and that the complainant was treated fairly during the four months that she worked for the respondent. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00066414-002: Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 I decide that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00066414-003: Complaint under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work Act) 2001 I decide that this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 27th January 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Training fees, part-time and full-time rates of pay |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054270
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Wanpin Cai | Purple Acorn Limited |
Representatives | Self-represented | Represented by Managers |
Complaint:
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-00066414-002 | 01/10/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 | CA-00066414-003 | 01/10/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/01/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, these complaints were assigned to me by the Director General. I conducted a hearing on January 17th 2025, at which I made enquiries and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaints. The complainant, Ms Wanpin Cai, attended the hearing alone and she represented herself. Purple Acorn Limited was represented by the business owner, Mr Mark Sheedy and the manager, Ms Anne Marie Waters. While the parties are named in this decision, for the remainder of this document, I will refer to Ms Cai as “the complainant” and to Purple Acorn Limited as “the respondent.”
Background:
The respondent trades as Caremark and has a contract with the HSE to provide care to people with disabilities and elderly people in their own homes. They have around 150 employees and they provide 3,300 hours of care to clients every week. Employees must be trained in accordance with HSE regulations and the respondent said that they deliver this training to their employees. They have an agreement with the employees that, if they leave the company in the first eight months of their employment, €60 will be deducted from their final weekly pay. The complainant is a Chinese national and, in China, she works as a senior product manager. She came to Ireland to do further study and she commenced working with the respondent on May 27th 2024. Her contract provides that she is required to work a minimum of two hours per day between Monday and Sunday. In September 2024, she commenced on a Masters degree and she informed her co-ordinator in Caremark that she could only work on Sundays. I understand from the respondent’s witnesses that the co-ordinator asked her to work on Saturdays and Sundays, but the outcome of the conversation was that the complainant resigned. At the hearing, she said that she isn’t working at present, but at the close of proceedings, she said that she is exploring on LinkedIn the possibility of a product manager role. Under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the complainant said that she is upset about the fact that €60 was deducted from her second last payslip. I understand from the evidence of the manager, Ms Waters said that the complainant’s final payslip included her outstanding holiday pay and that the €60 was deducted from her final wages which was recorded on her second last payslip. Under the heading of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work Act) 2001, the complainant claims that the respondent pays part-time employees like her less than full-time employees. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00066414-002: Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 In her evidence, the complainant said that, when she was issued with her written contract, she asked her employer about the provision that stated that, if she left the company before the expiry of eight months, she would have to pay her employer €60. She said that she was instructed to “just sign” the contract and that the employer “would not really charge me.” For the respondent, Ms Waters said that the company is required to provide training to their employees, and that they have many new starters every week. Sometimes people find that the work isn’t suitable, but they receive certified training, which is helpful for seeking work with a different employer. Ms Waters said that the complainant signed her agreement to the deduction of €60 if she left her job before eight months was up. However, as a gesture of good will, Ms Waters said that the €60 was refunded to the complainant. The complainant was annoyed that the €60 was refunded after she submitted this complaint to the WRC on October 1st 2024. Having considered this matter, it is clear to me that this complaint is not about a breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, but that it is a claim about a deduction from wages. I am satisfied that there has been no illegal deduction from the complainant’s wages and that she has received all the wages to which she is entitled. While she made no reference to this issue on her complaint form, at the hearing, the complainant said that her contract provides that she is required to work a minimum of two hours a day. She complained that, on four days, she was rostered for just one hour a day. Ms Waters agreed that the complainant was rostered for one hour on four days. She referred to the complainant’s contract of employment which states that, “The company reasonably expects to provide you with a minimum of 2 hours per day over 5-7 days per week. However, these days, start and finish times will vary in accordance with the weekly / fortnightly roster. You may be required to work additional hours above those rostered when authorised and necessitate by the needs of the business. Details of your weekly working hours will be given to you at least 24 hours in advance of the working week, however, due to the nature of the business, your roster may be amended or changed during the working week.” Ms Waters said that rosters are subject to change because a client may be admitted to hospital or may have some other form of homecare provided to them. She said that the respondent’s obligation was to provide the complainant with a minimum of 20 hours’ work every week. The payslips that Ms Waters presented at the hearing show that the complainant worked around 30 hours every week. Having considered this complaint, I am satisfied that there was no breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 in relation to the complainant’s working hours. CA-00066414-003: Complaint under Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work Act) 2001 At the hearing, the complainant alleged that she was paid less than full-time employees. Ms Waters explained that employees with certain qualifications such as FETAC level 5 or a Degree in Social Care, and employees with several years of experience are paid more than employees with no experience. She said that the rate of pay is not conditional on whether an employee is full-time or part-time. I accept the respondent’s evidence that there is a variation in the rate of pay to reflect the experience and qualifications of employees and I find that there has been no breach of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work Act) 2001. Conclusion I have listened carefully to the complainant and I heard her version of events when she was working with the respondent and it is apparent that she was upset by her experience. I find however, that her grievance is rooted in a misunderstanding of the legislation and perhaps cultural differences between Ireland and China and her isolation in a foreign country. At the hearing, the respondent’s representatives acknowledged this. Ms Waters pointed out that the complainant received excellent results in her training courses and that she was a very good care worker and that she did her job well. Ms Waters apologised sincerely to the complainant for any upset caused by her experience of working with the company. I am satisfied that there was no breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 or the Part-time Work Act. I accept Ms Waters’ apology. I am satisfied that there has been no breach of the legislation referred to above and that the complainant was treated fairly during the four months that she worked for the respondent. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00066414-002: Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 I decide that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00066414-003: Complaint under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work Act) 2001 I decide that this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 27th January 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Training fees, part-time and full-time rates of pay |