ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058941
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Viktorija Jolkina | N&V Green Limited |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Hugh Hegarty Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00071513-001 | 12/05/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/11/2025 & 14/01/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant and a witness for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation. Cross examination was facilitated. The respondent submitted their written submissions and documentary evidence at a very late stage. In the interest of fairness, this necessitated an adjournment in order to allow the complainant to give adequate consideration to the documentation. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that she was not provided with the same terms and conditions of employment following the transfer of the business as she had enjoyed prior to the transfer of the business. She submitted that she was not rostered for a similar number of hours. Under evidence the complainant stated that she was not rostered for 23 hours per week after the transfer as she had been before the transfer. She also mentioned that she was asked to work weekends but couldn’t do so. Under cross examination the complainant confirmed the rostered hours as put to her were in excess of 23 hours weekly, save for Easter week. She confirmed that her previous contract had also indicated a seven-day working pattern when necessary. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that the complainant’s terms ad conditions of employment were the same after the transfer of the business as they had been prior to the transfer. The respondent elected not to give oral evidence having regard to the cross examination of the complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant confirmed in oral evidence that her terms and conditions of employment were the same as those relating to her employment prior to the transfer of the business. Arising from this confirmation, I find that the regulations were not contravened. |
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.
Having regard to the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the regulations were not contravened. |
Dated: 19th January 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Transfer of Undertaking Regulations – contravention not established |