Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Oana Florina  Ratiu

Mayrange Limited t/a Trinity Townhouse

Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

Marius Marosan

Peter Dunlea of Peninsula Business Services

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-00064576-001

04/07/2024

The issues in contention concern alleged changes, without notification, to Working Conditions and Terms of Employment of the Complainant, a Hotel Supervisor by a Dublin City Centre Hotel

The employment began on the 19th October 2014 and ended on the 4th July 2024.

The rate of pay was stated to have been €769 for a claimed 47.5 Hour week.

The Complainant was represented by Mr Marosan. Full oral testimony was given supported by a detailed Written Submission.

The Complainant in her Oral testimony assisted by Mr Marosan alleged that her Terms and Conditions of Employment were altered unilaterally by her Employer over a number of years -firstly the Appointment of a Mr Marco who seriously eroded her Supervisory responsibilities and most importantly by the conditions that the General Manager Mr K sought to impose on her at a Return-to-Work meeting on the 2nd July 2024. The Return to Work would have resulted in a major loss of status and related significant loss of income.

It was significantly in breach of Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Respondent was represented by Mr Dunlea of Peninsula Business Services supported by witnesses Mr K, General Manager and Ms G, Duty Manager. A detailed written submission was also relied upon

The Respondent denied absolutely that any material changes had ever been made to the Complainant Terms or Conditions of Employment. Her rate of pay had never been altered and the incidents involving her return to work were completely misconstrued. Mr K had, reasonably, suggested a phased Return to Work, following a lengthy period of Sick Leave. Any changes were in fact reductions to facilitate a safe return to full duties. At a meeting on the 2nd July 2024 he had proposed these and the Complainant had asked for time to consider. As he due to go on his annual leave on the 3rd he had asked her for quick response. Regrettably this was not forthcoming. She had asked for extra time but pre-empted all discussion by a Constructive Resignation on the 4th July 2024.

Further efforts to discuss had not proved possible.

The situation involving Mr Marco was also completely misconstrued. He was employed to help with Breakfast efficiency and was no negative reflection on the complaint who was a very valued employee. Mr Marco did not result in any material changes to the Complainants Terms and Conditions.

The entire Resignation situation was now the subject of other WRC complaints.

3:1      The Relevant Law and Discussion.

Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

Notification of changes.

5.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than—

(a) the day on which the change takes effect, or

(b) where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month, the time of the employee’s departure.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a change occurring in provisions of statutes or instruments made under statute  other than a registered employment agreement or employment regulation order, or of any other laws or of any administrative provisions or collective agreements referred to in the statement given under section 3 or 4.

Legal interpretation and precedent understand this to effectively refer to a permanent or prolonged Change in Terms.

3:2        Consideration of the Evidence presented.

In considering the evidence presented in this case, there was, to July 2024, no obvious material changes to the Complainant’s Terms or Conditions. It was true that newly appointed Managers such as Ms D in 2022 and Ms R in 2024 had efficiency discussions with the Complainant but there had been no material changes in her Terms.

The Return-to-Work proposals on the 2nd of July were suggestions that Mr K, the General Manager, felt appropriate from basically a welfare viewpoint. In his sworn evidence he was very clear that he appreciated that the Complainant had had some previous health issues, and he had simply wanted to phase her back to work gently. The Complainant in her Resignation letter of the 4th July had expressed a severe lack of faith in Mr K and flet the proposed changes were simply a negative agenda directed against her.  

This entire situation was discussed in detail in her other Complaints.

3:3       Summary Conclusions

On a careful review of all the evidence both Oral and Written the Adjudication view has to be that no material changes such as to warrant reference under Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 took place

Terms and Conditions of Employment -Information re alleged changes to duties.