ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047235
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Gabriela Kulaczkowska | Valcris Clinic Limited |
Representatives | Self Represented | Owner |
Complaint(s):
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-00058049-001 | 02/08/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00058049-003 | 02/08/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00058049-005 | 02/08/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00058049-006 | 02/08/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act,following
the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General,
I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity
to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a
body empowered to hold remote hearings.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24
on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public,
Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of
all witnesses would be provided for. The Hearing too place completely in public and the required
Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing
Perjury were explained to all parties. Full cross examination of Witnesses was allowed.
Background:
The Complainant submitted four complaints for investigation and adjudication. They related to not receiving written terms of employment, not receiving breaks, not being paid statutory notice and not being notified of changes to her contract of employment. The Complainant was employed as a Medical Receptionist from 30/9/2022 to 24/07/2023 and submitted her complaints to the WRC on August 2nd 2023. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant advised she received no written terms of employment as required within two months of her start date under Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. The Complainant advised she had to work 6 hours normally and sometimes 8 or 10 hours without a break in contravention of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1977. The Complainant advised she was not paid any notice in breach of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973. The Complainant advised she was not notified in writing within one month of changes to her contract of employment. The Complainant advised in her evidence that she was doing her best and it was her first time in this industry. She stated people should respect each other. The Complainant initially could not stipulate how many times she did not get a break and sometimes she covered two shifts over 10 hours and no break was provided. She then advised she never got a break every day she was employed. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Dr. Ketan (the Owner) gave evidence for the Respondent. He stated that as the Complainant was on probation they did not believe she was entitled to a written contract. Dr. Ketan advised the Complainant was hired initially to give her training as she had no experience of the role and the Complainant was out sick at the end of December and was not a stable employee. He advised she was working 30 hours a week and normally from 9am to 3pm and he advised in June 2023 the Complainants hours changed Dr. Ketan, in addressing the breaks issue, stated that sometimes there would only be 3 patients at a time in the Clinic and the Complainant had adequate time to take breaks. Dr. Ketan advised there was often times when there were no patients in Reception and he observed the Complainant numerous times on Facebook or watching TV at her desk. Dr. Ketan advised the Complainant was paid for all hours she was at work and this included break times and that the only time there were really busy was at Christmas when about 50 patients attended the Clinic. Dr. Ketan advised there was other staff available and if the Complainant wanted some specific time off for a break there were people available to cover for her. Dr. Ketan also advised they changed the hours of work required and the Complainant got an email in June about it for September. Dr. Pirog also gave evidence for the Respondent that she witnessed the Owner giving the Complainant verbal warnings about her behaviour. Dr. Pirog felt the Complainant did not trust the owners. Dr. Pirog stated there were a number of occasions where patients were not happy with the service of the Complainant and they had complained about her. Dr. Pirog stated she lived near the Complainant and had given her a start in the business for training even though she had no experience. Dr. Pirog stated the Complainants behaviour changed and there were issues at work. Dr.Pirog advised that the Complainant was refusing to accept changes and eventually she felt so uneasy around the Complainant that she would stay outside or in her office until the Complainant left. Dr.Pirog advised than when the Complainant was approached re finishing tasks properly she felt the Complainant was bullying her. Dr. Pirog advised that they had a number of Receptionists over time and they were all happy there except the Complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 The Law
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision
in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress
provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find the complaint well founded and award the Complainant 1440 Euros. (CA-00058049-001) I find the complaint well founded and award the Complainant 500 Euros. (CA-00058049-003) I find the complaint well founded and award the Complainant 360 Euros. (CA-00058049-005) I find the Respondent did not breach the Act and the complaint is not well founded. (CA-00058049-006)
|
Dated: 01/12/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Key Words:
Terms of Employment |