TED233

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No(S) ADJ-00028956 CA-00036663-003

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 21 May 2022 in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2014. Labour Court hearings took place on 29 November 2022 and 2 February 2023. The following is the Decision of the Court:-







DETERMINATION:

This is an appeal by Gheorghe Daniel Marcu (Complainant) against decision ADJ-00028956 CA 00036663-003 of an Adjudication Officer in his complaint against his employer Dangan Group (the Respondent) under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (the Act). The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was not well founded.

Background

The Complainant transferred to the Respondent’s employment under a transfer of undertakings on 14^th April 2020. He had been employed with the previous employer since August 2016. The Complainant’s complaint is that there was a change to his terms and conditions of employment after he transferred and that he ahd not been notified in writing of the change.

The complaint was lodged with the WRC on 15^th June 2020. The cognisable period for the purposes of the Act is 16^th December 2019 to 15^th June 2020. The Labour Court heard the appeal on the 29^th November 2022 and 2^nd February 2023.

This case is linked to cases HSC/22/7 and TU/22/5.

Summary of Complainant’s case and evidence.

It was the Complainant’s submission that contrary to section 5(1) (a) of the Act, he was never notified in writing of changes to his terms and conditions of employment. It was his submission that requiring him to carry out the specific task in dispute which he had previously refused to carry out was a change to his terms and conditions of employment.

Summary of Respondent’s submission and evidence.

The Respondent submitted that there was no change to the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment. He was asked to carry out a task which was always on the list of duties for his role. It was not disputed that previously staff had refused to do the task but that was because they had insufficient time. This issue was addressed and all other staff are currently carrying out the task.

The applicable law

Section 5 (1) of the Act states

• • Subject to subsection (2), whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the aprt5iculars 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 my be thereafter, but not later than-
  (a) 1 month after the change takes effect,

The Complainant has failed to identify any change to his statement of particulars of employment and therefore his complaint must fail. The issue the Complainant sought to rely on was a task that he was asked to do rather than any changes to his terms and conditions of employment. The evidence before the Court was that the task in issue was always contained in the list of duties attached to the Complaints role.

The appeal fails

The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld

The Court so determines

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
CC	______________________
15 February 2023	Deputy Chairman