Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Business Consultant

A European Training and Education Organisation

Representatives

Self-Represented

Gareth Kyne, MSS Ireland Limited

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-00066588-001

08/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00066588-002

08/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00066588-004

08/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00066588-005

08/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00066588-006

08/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00066588-007

08/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00066588-008

08/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00066588-009

08/10/2024

The issues in contention concern multiple complaints by a senior Project Manager/ Erasmus Programme Developer / Author  & Administrator against a European Projects Organisation, Irish located, subsidiary Company.

The employment began on the 1st February 2018 and ended on the 25th April 2024.

While the rate of pay was somewhat disputed the Complainant stated that she had been in receipt of an Annual Salary of some € 55,210 per annum.

The Complainant was self-represented . Very substantial Oral testimony was given supported by extensive Written Submissions. The Complainant was fully cross examined by Mr Kyne for the Respondents.

To assist, a Tabular format , referencing cited legislation, will be utilised in a summary of the Complaints.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Summary Complaint

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00066588-001

1:1       Complainant was not properly notified of changes to her Terms of Employment.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00066588-002

1:2       The Complainant alleged that she had been ConstructivelyDismissed  due to the Breach of Contract and Unreasonable Behaviours of the Respondent. Both Grounds were outlined in her Submissions. In particular the Respondent Business Model utilised was one that was totally exploitative of vulnerable staff -effectively forcing staff to “Double Work” in the Number of Projects undertaken which was twice  the Industry Norm . By any accepted standard this was Unreasonable Behaviour by the Respondent sufficient to justify a Constructive Dismissal complaint.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00066588-004

1:3       The Complainant alleged Equality Discrimination on the grounds of a Disability and failure to make Reasonable Accommodation.

She had suffered an accident in January 2023 which had severely limited her mobility. On further investigation it had been established that she had a serious Deep Vein Thrombosis directly related to the excessive work load and Air  travel  the job required. The Respondent made no allowance for these factors which was a clear case of Disability Discrimination.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00066588-005

1:4       The Complainant was not paid her due Statutory Redundancy. She had been employed continuously since 1st February 2018 to the 25th April 2024 and was due a Statutory Redundancy payment. She had been left without work due to the Respondent Employer actions.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00066588-006

1:5       The Complainant stated that her payment for hours of work, when examined closely, was considerably less than the Irish National Minimum Wages. The Complainant argued that the nature of the “Double Work” required working hours far in excess of those actually paid for.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00066588-007

1:6       The Complainant alleged that she was regularly expected to work Sundays to complete projects on time. She received no Sunday premium as required by the OWT Act, 1997.

In addition , she strongly maintained that the Business Model of the Respondent was grossly exploitative in the manner it was structured which clearly involved excess hours from employees. The Respondent had structured matters in such a way that Employees were effectively doing Double Work ( excessive number of projects -as high as 8 at a time ) in comparison to the Industry Norm of some four projects per Executive)

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00066588-008

1:7           The Complainant did not receive a statement in Writing of her Core Terms of Employment.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00066588-009

1:8       The Complainant had received a Statement that contained false and misleading information.

The Respondent was represented by Mr Kyne of MSS Ireland Ltd supported by Senior Executives , Mr BY and Mr BB. A detailed written submission was furnished and extensive Oral testimony was given.

Again, for convenience a Tabular Format will be used

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Summary Respondent Replies.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00066588-001

2:1       Complainant was not properly notified of changes to her Terms of Employment.

The Respondent argued that the Terms of Employment were always agreed well in advance and for each project were agreed before the start of the individual project. Any changes were mutually agreed.

There was no Legal basis to maintain a Well Founded complaint in this case.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00066588-002

2:2      The Complainant alleged that she had been Constructively Dismissed due to the Breach of Contract and Unreasonable Behaviours of the Respondent.

Mr Kyne for the Respondent argued that the Complainant had clearly resigned in an E mail delivered on the 23rd April 2024. It was unambiguous and was quoted by the Respondent

“It is sad that this is how I must conclude our Working relationship”     (from e mail of the 23rd April 2024).

The Resignation arose following a major difference of opinion with a colleague Lead Co Ordinator on the issue of required standards of inputs to Projects.

The Respondent argued that Standard Constructive Dismissal grounds of Breach of Contract, Unreasonable Behaviours by either Party and Use/Non  Utilisation of Internal procedures could not apply as none of these issues applied.

Notwithstanding the Time Limits argument which the Respondent pointed out made evidence submitted period to the start of the cognisable Period ( 9th April 2024) inadmissible ,extensive e mail correspondence between the Parties was submitted to support the argument that No Unreasonable Behaviours had taken place at any time in the employment relationship.

The Respondent had agreed to major changes in Working Hours/ Numbers of  Projects in 2023 following the Skating accident and had made  a number of very reasonable job/proposals to the Complainant both pre and post the Resignation.

The Complainant had made it clear that she was also seeking work with another Irish based Consultancy.

As regards a Breach of Employment Contract this had never happened.

Furthermore ,the Complainant had never formally invoked any Grievance or Internal Dispute Resolution procedures prior to resigning on the 25th April 2024.

The Respondent argued that the Complainant was a very valuable resource that they had always  wished to keep in the organisation. Post Resignation work proposals had to be seen in this light.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00066588-004

2:3      The Complainant alleged Equality Discrimination on the grounds of a Disability and failure to make a Reasonable Accommodation for the Complainant.

The time Limit for this Complaint was the 9th to the 25th April 2024.

None the less, it was agreed that the Complainant  had suffered an accident in January 2023 which had severely limited her mobility. On further investigation it had been established that she had a serious Deep Vein Thrombosis allegedly directly related to the excessive work load and Air  travel  the job required.

The Respondent completely refuted the allegation that no allowance for these factors had been afforded to the Complainant. The Reduction in Work Load suggested by the Complainant had been agreed without hesitation.

On a Legal Technical basis, the Respondent pointed to the fact that no Medical evidence had ever been received to support a claim of a Disability. Section 85A (1) of the Employment Equality Act – the Burden of Proof Section was cited as was significant case law Margetts v Graham Anthony & Co Ltd EDA038 , Cork City council v McCarthyEDA21/2008 and majorly Melbury Developments Ltd v Valpeters [2010] ELR 64.

Put simply the Respondent argued that the Complainant had put forward a case based on unsupported suppositions and allegations. It lacked a proper Legal Prima Facie basis and must fail.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00066588-005

2:4     The Complainant was not paid her due Statutory Redundancy. She had been employed continuously since 1st February 2018 to the 25th April 2024 and was due a Statutory Redundancy payment.

The Respondent argued that the Complainant had voluntarily resigned. She had been offered more than a sufficiency of work and the position remained. No Legal basis for Redundancy as set out in the Redundancy Payments Act,1967 basis existed.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00066588-006

2:5      The Complainant stated that her payment for hours of work, when examined closely, was considerably less than the Irish National Minimum Wages.

On a Technical basis the Respondent opened by pointing to Section 23 of the Act which requires the Employee /Complainant to have sought and secured a Statement from the Employer detailing the Wages paid prior to making a WRC Complaint.

No such statement had been requested and according to the Complaint is outside jurisdiction of the Adjudication Officer.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00066588-007

2:6     The Complainant alleged that she was regularly expected to work Sundays to complete projects on time. She received no Sunday premium as required by the OWT Act, 1997.

In the Cognisable Period (9th April to the 24th April 2023) there were two Sundays. There was no legal “requirement” on the Complainant to work either Sunday - Section14 (1) of the OWT Act,1997 applies.

Accordingly, there is no proper legal foundation for a complaint.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00066588-008

2:7     The Complainant did not receive a statement in Writing of her Core Terms of Employment.

The Respondent referred to a Contract of Employment issued in 2019. It was accepted that it was not in strict compliance with the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. However, any transgressions were minor and had had no material impact on the Complainant.  The Respondent noted that the Terms and Conditions of Employment had been renegotiated, by mutual consent, on a number of occasions during the term of the Employment.

There was no malign ambiguity in the Terms of Employment

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00066588-009

2:8     The Complainant had received a Statement that contained false and misleading information.

This allegation was resolutely denied by the Respondent. No malign or misleading Contracts had ever been issued.

3:1       Opening Observations

This case involved eight separate complaints by the Complainant. All were deeply felt, were supported by a voluminous body of documentation and a passionate Oral Testimony.

The Respondent, while sympathetic to the Complainant, clearly stated that it was their absolute Legal prerogative to have the case Adjudicated upon in strict keeping with existing Laws  and Statutes. Evidence that is cogent and defensible is at all times required.

The Legal precedent of Melbury Developments Ltd v Valpeters [2010] ELR was quoted. 

“mere speculation or assertions unsupported by evidence cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn”.

Following Legal precedent and Statute Law Adjudication decision must proceed on this basis.

3:2        Opening Legal argument – Cognisable Period

The definition of the Cognisable period is crucial. Legal precedent indicates that the Cognisable Period is from the 9th April 2024 (6 months prior to the WRC Lodgement date of the 88th of October 2024) to the date of Resignation - 25th April 2024.

The Adjudication view is that complaints have to be considered on this time basis even allowing a degree of latitude to the Complainant.

The argument has to be that there was nothing preventing the Complainant lodging her WRC complaint at a much earlier date.

Again, a Tabular Format will be used to consider the complaints.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Adjudication conclusions.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00066588-001

3:3       Complainant was not properly notified of changes to her Terms of Employment.

Notwithstanding the Cognisable Period restrictions, the evidence pointed to pattern of many renegotiations of the basic contract. It was not sustained that the Complainant had contract changes made without her knowledge or consent.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00066588-002

3:4      The Complainant alleged that she had been Constructively Dismissed due to the Breach of Contract and Unreasonable Behaviours of the Respondent.

Constructive Dismissal requires, in the main, that three Legal tests are satisfied, namely serious Breach of the Employment Contract, Egregious Unreasonable Behaviours by one or both sides and Use/Non-Use Employment Procedures.

In Legal precedent in relation to Constructive Dismissal the Adjudicator in A Maintenance Supervisor v A Charity ADJ 00002881 set out a comprehensive review which is worth quoting.

 For a claim of constructive dismissal to be properly brought under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015, the Complainant must satisfy the definition in Section 1(b) which provides:

 “the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer,…”

 As endorsed by the Labour Court in Paris Bakery & Pastry Limited -v- Mrzljak DWT1468, the classic formulation of the legal test in respect of constructive dismissal was set out by the UK Court of Appeal in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd -v- Sharp [1978] 1 All E.R. 713. It comprises of two limbs, referred to as the ‘contract’ and the ‘reasonableness’ tests. It summarised the ‘contract test’ as follows:

“If the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any other performance.”

 The reasonableness test assesses the conduct of the employer and whether it

“…conducts himself or his affairs so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer, if so, the employee is justified in leaving.”

According to the Irish Supreme Court in Berber -v- Dunnes Stores [2009] E.L.R. 61:

 “The conduct of the employer complained of must be unreasonable and without proper cause and its effect on the employee must be judged objectively, reasonably and sensibly in order to determine if it is such that the employee cannot be expected to put up with it.”

Unlike the position where dismissal is not in issue, this definition firmly places the onus/burden of proof on the employee to show that the resignation was justified in all the circumstances.

Furthermore, in the case of use/non-use of Employment Procedures the oft quoted text is from the case of Harrold v St Michael’s House, [2008] E.L.R. where the determination quoted from Redmond, Dismissal Law in Ireland (2002):

“There is something of a mirror image between ordinary dismissal and constructive dismissal. Just as an employer for reasons of fairness and natural justice must go through disciplinary procedures before dismissing, so too an employee should invoke the employees’ grievance procedures in an effort to revoke his grievance. The duty is an imperative in employees’ resignations.”

However, a certain degree of Legal caution is required here.

In the case of Allen v Independent Newspapers, IR [2002] E.L.R. 84 the claimant, resigned her position. She alleged that she had been constructively dismissed in that the conduct of her employer and the treatment of her and attitude towards her left no choice but to terminate her employment.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal, however, was satisfied that at various stages throughout her employment and more particularly in September 2000, the claimant brought her complaints to senior management level within the Respondent newspaper. Overall, the Tribunal considered that it was reasonable for the claimant to take into consideration the manner in which her various complaints were dealt with during 1999 and 2000 in arriving at her conclusion that she had essentially lost faith in what was being offered by way of investigation by the Respondent in September 2000.

 She was entitled to do so because the EAT accepted that she had cause for complaint after June 2000. The tribunal therefore accepted the claimant’s assertion that she could have no confidence in the Respondent to address her grievances either properly or effectively and that such was a reasonable conclusion in all the circumstances. Furthermore, the claimant did not act unreasonably in taking into consideration the likely effect on her health and wellbeing were she to remain in the work environment. She had communicated her concerns about her health to her employer. The tribunal, however, considered that this was a constructive dismissal and stated that

 “the Respondent company acted unreasonably in its dealings with the claimant and she became frustrated, leaving her with no option but to resign”.

In summary therefore, a failure to use internal Procedures prior to a Resignation has to be considered carefully by an Adjudicator in any consideration of a constructive Dismissal.

In the case in Hand , Mr Kyne for the Respondent argued that the Complainant had clearly resigned in an E mail delivered on the 23rd April 2024. It was unambiguous and was quoted by the Respondent

“It is sad that this is how I must conclude our Working relationship”     (from e mail of the 23rd April 2024).

The Resignation arose following a major difference of opinion with a colleague Lead Co Ordinator on the issue of required standards of inputs to Projects.

The Respondent argued that Standard Constructive Dismissal grounds of Breach of Contract, Unreasonable Behaviours by either Party and Use/Non  Utilisation of Internal procedures could not apply as none of these issues applied. 

Extensive e mail correspondence between the Parties was submitted to support the argument that No Unreasonable Behaviours had taken place. The evidence submitted indicated that the Respondent had agreed to major changes in Working Hours/ Numbers of  Projects in 2023 following the accident and had made  a number of very reasonable job/proposals to the Complainant both pre and post the Resignation.

3:4:1     Adjudication conclusion

The Adjudication Officer studied carefully the Oral Testimony of the Parties and the very substantial volumes of documentation proffered.

Regardless of the Cognisable Period difficulty, the Adjudication conclusion is that the well established Constructive Dismissal legal requirements of Breach of Contract, Unreasonable Behaviours by either Party and Use/Non  Utilisation of Internal procedures were not supported by hard concrete evidence.

The Complainant case put forward the overall argument that  the Business Model of the Respondent was “inherently unreasonable” and was in fact almost “malign” towards Staff.  This was a very major Legal assumption that would have required very substantial evidence - probably involving a range of expert EU level Consultants and Experts.

The Parties, under Oath/Affirmation,  had vigorously disputed this point

Differences in Business Models and varying competing interpretations of same  are not the normal legal basis of a Constructive Dismissal complaint. The Respondent argued, throughout the Proceedings, that the issues had to be tightly focused on the existing Law & Precedent.

The Complainant came across in her presentation as a person of high intellectual calibre who had worked happily on the Business Model for almost six years. To now maintain that it was “Inherently Unreasonable” cannot be really sustained on the evidence proffered to the Hearing.

In summary, the Adjudication view had to be that the complaint of Constructive Dismissal cannot be Legally sustained on the accepted Legal Precedents governing , time limits, evidence and arguments in a Constructive Dismissal situation.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00066588-004

3:5        The Complainant alleged Equality Discrimination on the grounds of a Disability and failure to make a Reasonable Accommodation for the Complainant.

The Respondent argued the Time Limits position. The Complaint was in their view completely Out of Time.

Nonetheless ,it was agreed that the Complainant had suffered an accident while ice skating in January 2023 which had severely limited her mobility. On further investigation it had been established that she had a serious Deep Vein Thrombosis allegedly  directly related to the excessive work load and Air  travel  the job required.

The evidence clearly showed that the Complainant had suffered an accident and was mobility impaired in January and the early months of 2023.

These Ice Accident events happened some 21 months approximately before the complaint was lodged at the WRC. Even allowing latitude for the Cognisable period argument discussed above this complaint has to be seen as Out of Time.

As regards Reasonable Accommodation post the Accident ,the evidence pointed to requested adjustments in Work load being agreed by the Respondent.

As regards the Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)  the Respondent had correctly pointed to the fact that no Medical evidence had ever been received to support a claim of a Disability  directly linked to her work.  At best the Medical correspondence was ambiguous and did not make a direct causal link. Again there was a Time Limit question as the initial DVT detection was in early 2023.

Section 85A (1) of the Employment Equality Act – the Burden of Proof Section was cited in pleadings as was significant case law Margetts v Graham Anthony & Co Ltd EDA038 , Cork City council v McCarthyEDA21/2008 and majorly Melbury Developments Ltd v Valpeters [2010] ELR 64.

In plain English for a Disability Claim with accompanying reasonable Accommodation complaint, in this case DVT, to succeed it has to be based on very strong facts.

The basic Complainant assumption being made was that the Air Travel and alleged unreasonable work model of the Respondent was a causal factor in the DVT was an assumption that would have needed much better evidence.

Regardless of the above, the correspondence between the Parties indicated that a significant work load reduction took place in 2023 ,initially requested by the Complainant , as a result of the medical/accident difficulties. The Respondent argued that this was a more than “Reasonable Accommodation”.

In a Equality / Discrimination case the primary starting point is for the Complaint to raise a sufficient inference  -create a Legal Prima Facie case. It cannot rely on unsupported suppositions and allegations. Regrettably for the Complainant in this case this has to be the Adjudication conclusion.

The Employment Equality evidence  being put forward has not reached the required Legal standards to sustain a Discrimination or Reasonable Accommodation case.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00066588-005

3:6        The Complainant was not paid her due Statutory Redundancy. She had been employed continuously since 1st February 2018 to the 25th April 2024 and was due a Statutory Redundancy payment.

Under the Redundancy Payments Act,1967 a Redundancy must meet one or more of five requirements. Section 7 is quoted below.

General right to redundancy payment.

7.—(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—

(a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

(b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of F18[four years] ending on that date.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if F19[for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned] the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—

(a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

F20[(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained

None of these criteria applied here . The Complainant resigned her employment on the 25th April 2024 and the evidence ( emails etc)  indicated that considerable negotiation had taken place post this date regarding a new stream of work.

 A claim for a Redundancy payment cannot be sustained.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00066588-006

3:7       The Complainant stated that her payment for hours of work, when examined closely, was considerably less than the Irish National Minimum Wages.

On a Technical basis the Respondent pointed to Section 23 of the Act which requires the Employee /Complainant to have sought and secured a Statement from the Employer detailing the Wages paid prior to making a WRC Complaint.

No such statement had been requested and according the Complaint is outside the jurisdiction  of the Adjudication Officer.

Regrettably for the Complainant this Technical argument has to be sustained.

This is not withstanding to further arguments that the Wage paid to the Complainant  was considerably in excess of the National Minimum Wage unless the method of calculation is radically adapted to allow for alleged extra “Unreasonable Business Model” work. This point was not really explored specifically as regards the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00066588-007

3:8       The Complainant alleged that she was regularly expected to work Sundays to complete projects on time. She received no Sunday premium as required by the OWT Act, 1997.

Again this is a complaint based on the alleged  Unreasonable Business Model of the Respondent.

 In the/Reference Period ( 9th April to the 24th April 2023) there were two Sundays. There was no legal “requirement” on the Complainant to work either Sunday - Section14 (1) of the OWT Act,1997 applies. Extending this to all hours worked the same argument applies. Sunday Work was not legally “required”.

Accordingly, there is no proper legal foundation for a complaint.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00066588-008

3:9       The Complainant did not receive a statement in Writing of her Core Terms of Employment.

The evidence here was that the Contract of Employment ,while initially issued in 2019 , remained in a state of veritable “flux “ with ongoing interactions between the Parties tied to various EU Contracts/ Job Proposals.

There was no “malign ambiguity” in the Terms of Employment and any breaches of Section 7 of the Act were not material. A redress award must reflect this.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00066588-009

3:10     The Complainant had received a Statement that contained false and misleading information.

This allegation was resolutely denied by the Respondent under sworn Oath.

No malign or misleading Contracts had ever been issued and none were presented in evidence.

The Complaint lacks a proper Legal Foundation.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Adjudication Decision

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00066588-001

4:1       Complainant was not properly notified of changes to her Terms of Employment.

The complaint is not Legally Properly Founded. It has to be deemed Unsuccessful

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00066588-002

4:2       The Complainant alleged that she had been ConstructivelyDismissed due to the Breach of Contract and Unreasonable Behaviours of the Respondent.

The complaint is not Legally Properly Founded. It has to be deemed Unsuccessful

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00066588-004

4:3       The Complainant alleged Equality Discrimination on the grounds of a Disability and failure to make Reasonable Accommodation.

The complaint is not Legally Properly Founded. It has to be deemed Unsuccessful. Discrimination as set out in the Employment Equality Act,1998 was not established to a required Legal Standard. The Reasonable Accommodation complaint could not then be considered.

A proper initial Prima Facie case was not established.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00066588-005

4:4       The Complainant was not paid her due Statutory Redundancy.

As set out at Para 3:6 above the Complaint did not satisfy the Legal requirements for a Statutory redundancy claim.

It has to be deemed unsuccessful

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00066588-006

4:5       The Complainant stated that her payment for hours of work, when examined closely, was considerably less than the Irish National Minimum Wages.

On examination the Complaint is not L      egally Properly Founded.

It has to be deemed Unsuccessful

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00066588-007

4:6       The Complainant alleged that she was regularly expected to work Sundays to complete projects on time. She received no Sunday premium as required by the OWT Act, 1997.

The Complaint is deemed not Legally Properly Founded.

It has to be deemed Unsuccessful

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00066588-008

4:7       The Complainant did not receive a statement in Writing of her Core Terms of Employment.

The Complaint is deemed not Legally Properly Founded.

It has to be deemed Unsuccessful

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00066588-009

4:8       The Complainant had received a Statement that contained false and misleading information.

The Complaint is deemed not Legally Properly Founded.

It has to be deemed Unsuccessful

Unfair Dismissal, Employment Equality, Organisation of Working Time Act, Employment Information, National Minimum Wage