CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 41 OF THE WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
This Order corrects the original Decision ADJ-00060179 issued on 15/01/26 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060179
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Agita Savicka | Gwm Renewables Ltd |
Representatives | Mr. Dominic Carthy | Self-Represented |
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-00073262-001 | 09/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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:
The Complainant’s employment commenced on 1st August 2015. Following a transfer under the TUPE regulations, the Complainant’s employment with the Respondent commenced in October 2020.
On 9th July 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent placed her on a “zero hours” contract and that the Complainant was not offered “banded hours” in the course of her employment.
A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 8th September 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing. This hearing was listed and heard in parallel to that bearing file reference ADJ-00057438, and this decision should be read in conjunction with the same.
Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing. The Complainant gave evidence in support of her complaint, while a managing director of the Respondent gave evidence in defence. All evidence was given under oath or examination and was opened to cross examination by the opposing side. |
Summary of the Complainant’s Case:
By submission, the Complainant stated that at the commencement of her employment, she worked on a full-time basis. She further submitted that she worked on this full-time basis until January 2024. At this time, the Complainant was place on part time hours, of typically 20 - 25 hours per week. The Complainant submitted that she did not consent to this amendment. She further submitted that she did not receive updated terms and conditions in relation to the amendment to her terms of employment. The Complainant also submitted that she did not receive an updated contract of employment in respect to amendment to her proposed terms as set out by the Respondent. In addition to the foregoing, the Complainant submitted that by unilaterally reducing the Complainant’s hours in this manner, the Respondent effectively placed her on a “zero hours” contract, in contravention of the legislation. In addition to the foregoing, the Complainant submitted that the Respondent did not provide her with a band of hours in contravention of the amended statute. |
Summary of the Respondent’s Case:
By response, the Respondent stated that the Complainant received a full suite of contractual documentation at the commencement of her employment. They submitted that this documentation was updated in following their take-over of the business. In this respect, they submitted that the Complainant’s statement of terms of employment was in full compliance with the requirements of the Act, and they denied any breach of the same. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In proceedings listed in parallel with the present matter, it was determined that the Complainant’s employment was terminated by operation of the Redundancy Payments Act on 15th January 2025. In this respect, it is apparent that there is no breach of the Act occurs by the Respondent failing to issue an amended contract of employment in respect to proposed changes to the Complainant’s terms following that date. It is further noted that the decision emanating from the file reference listed in parallel to the present matter compensated the Complainant for a breach of the Act in respect to the statement regarding the Complainant’s hours of work. Regarding the Complainant’s submissions in respect of the issue of banded hours, Section 18A(5) of the Organisation of Working Time Act provides that, “…where an employee believes that he or she is entitled to be placed in a band of weekly working hours, he or she shall inform the employer and request, in writing, to be so placed.” Aside from the fact that this particular complaint is not actionable under the impleaded legislation, there is no evidence of the Complainant seeking such a statement within the cognisable period of the present Act. Regarding the issue of the purported “zero hours” contract, the Complainant submitted that such contracts have now been deemed to be illegal, and the Respondent is in breach of the Act by reducing her hours in this regard. Again, the Organisation of Working Time Act was amended to provide that where an employer fails to provide an employee with work that amounts to at least once quarter of their ordinarily required working time, the employee will be entitled to the lesser of either one quarter of their hours or fifteen hours in total. While it is again noted that no cause of action accrues under the present legislation in this regard, the complaint advanced by the Complainant does not allege a breach of this duty on the part of the Respondent. In consideration of the accumulation of the foregoing points, I find that the complaint is not well-founded. |
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.
I find that the complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 15-01-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Hours of Work, Zero Hours, Banded Hours, Date of Termination |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060179
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Agita Savicka | Gwm Renewables Ltd |
Representatives | Mr. Dominic Carthy | Self-Represented |
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-00073262-001 | 09/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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:
The Complainant’s employment commenced on 1st August 2015. Following a transfer under the TUPE regulations, the Complainant’s employment with the Respondent commenced in October 2020.
On 9th July 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent placed her on a “zero hours” contract and that the Complainant was not offered “banded hours” in the course of her employment.
A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 8th September 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing. This hearing was listed and heard in parallel to that bearing file reference ADJ-00057436, and this decision should be read in conjunction with the same.
Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing. The Complainant gave evidence in support of her complaint, while a managing director of the Respondent gave evidence in defence. All evidence was given under oath or examination and was opened to cross examination by the opposing side. |
Summary of the Complainant’s Case:
By submission, the Complainant stated that at the commencement of her employment, she worked on a full-time basis. She further submitted that she worked on this full-time basis until January 2024. At this time, the Complainant was place on part time hours, of typically 20 - 25 hours per week. The Complainant submitted that she did not consent to this amendment. She further submitted that she did not receive updated terms and conditions in relation to the amendment to her terms of employment. The Complainant also submitted that she did not receive an updated contract of employment in respect to amendment to her proposed terms as set out by the Respondent. In addition to the foregoing, the Complainant submitted that by unilaterally reducing the Complainant’s hours in this manner, the Respondent effectively placed her on a “zero hours” contract, in contravention of the legislation. In addition to the foregoing, the Complainant submitted that the Respondent did not provide her with a band of hours in contravention of the amended statute. |
Summary of the Respondent’s Case:
By response, the Respondent stated that the Complainant received a full suite of contractual documentation at the commencement of her employment. They submitted that this documentation was updated in following their take-over of the business. In this respect, they submitted that the Complainant’s statement of terms of employment was in full compliance with the requirements of the Act, and they denied any breach of the same. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In proceedings listed in parallel with the present matter, it was determined that the Complainant’s employment was terminated by operation of the Redundancy Payments Act on 15th January 2025. In this respect, it is apparent that there is no breach of the Act occurs by the Respondent failing to issue an amended contract of employment in respect to proposed changes to the Complainant’s terms following that date. It is further noted that the decision emanating from the file reference listed in parallel to the present matter compensated the Complainant for a breach of the Act in respect to the statement regarding the Complainant’s hours of work. Regarding the Complainant’s submissions in respect of the issue of banded hours, Section 18A(5) of the Organisation of Working Time Act provides that, “…where an employee believes that he or she is entitled to be placed in a band of weekly working hours, he or she shall inform the employer and request, in writing, to be so placed.” Aside from the fact that this particular complaint is not actionable under the impleaded legislation, there is no evidence of the Complainant seeking such a statement within the cognisable period of the present Act. Regarding the issue of the purported “zero hours” contract, the Complainant submitted that such contracts have now been deemed to be illegal, and the Respondent is in breach of the Act by reducing her hours in this regard. Again, the Organisation of Working Time Act was amended to provide that where an employer fails to provide an employee with work that amounts to at least once quarter of their ordinarily required working time, the employee will be entitled to the lesser of either one quarter of their hours or fifteen hours in total. While it is again noted that no cause of action accrues under the present legislation in this regard, the complaint advanced by the Complainant does not allege a breach of this duty on the part of the Respondent. In consideration of the accumulation of the foregoing points, I find that the complaint is not well-founded. |
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.
I find that the complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 15-01-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Hours of Work, Zero Hours, Banded Hours, Date of Termination |