ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-0005206

Parties:

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Joe Ward

Vector Workplace and Facility Management Limited

trading as Aramark Workplace Solutions

Representatives

Derek Beegan

Connect Trade Union Kavanagh

Aleksandra Tiilikainen

IBEC

Complaint:

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-00063893-001	04/06/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/05/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation made by an employee of a complaint of a contravention - by an employer - of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 (or such other Act as might be referred to in the 2015 Act), to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or dispute.

I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing as well as any written submissions disclosed in advance of the hearing.

The Complainant herein has referred a matter for adjudication as provided for under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 in circumstances where a Contract of Service has commenced and where the said Employee employed by an Employer is entitled to have been provided (within two months of the commencement of the employee’s employment with the employer) with a Statement of certain Terms of the employment.

The Act also provides that an employer must notify the Employee of any changes in the particulars already detailed in the Statement of Terms. This is set out in Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 which puts the onus on an employer to notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of change in any of the particulars of the statement as provided by the Employer. The obligation does not extend to a change occurring in provision of statutes and instruments made under statute.

This Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 implements an EU Directive and applies to all persons working under a Contract of Employment or apprenticeship (whether on a fulltime or part time basis). It includes persons working through an employment agency where the party remunerating is responsible for the provision of the said Statement of Terms.

In circumstances where I consider the complaint to be well founded, I may require a Statement of Terms be provided. In addition, I am entitled to direct a payment of compensation up to the value of four weeks remuneration such that is just and equitable in all the circumstances.

Background:

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

In response to the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021 ]IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021), I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice. I have additionally informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and in the event that there is a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to a complaint then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Oath/Affirmation as appropriate. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 4th of June 2024.

At the completion of the hearing, I did take the time to carefully review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of all the evidence and submissions that I have considered. Any matter not specifically addressed is deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was represented by a member of his Union. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant brought a number of witnesses to provide evidence in support of his/her case. I was provided with a comprehensive submission dated the 11th of October 2024. The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form. This complaint was set out as follows:

i have been working as a mobile fabric technician for 16 years on the central contract team.I was never contracted on a single contract.My role involved from time to time assisting those contracts with annual leave or site cover.All employees on those contracts are signed up to those contracts.my role has always been to the Central team.In Oct 2022 i was removed from a job under false allegations and told i was going over to Tesco contract to cover temporaily.I knew straight away that this was a bullying tactic by a certain manager and i put in numerous complaints to HR that this was not a role i wanted to work on as it was a different skillset and i wanted to return to my contracted role.I felt the company were using this tactic to get rid of me because i attended the WRC previously representing the workforce.The company were informed in late April that they lost the Tesco contract and i received a letter stating that i had to TUPE to another company.I was never signed up to the Tesco contract and never left my contracted role in the company.That role was never made redundant.I feel i have been Bullied and throughout any investigations or appeals i felt the company never assigned anyone independant

I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case.

The Complainant alleges that he was not notified in writing of the fact that the Employer herein was no longer prepared to recognise the Complainant’s role as a mobile technician and instead attributed a static role to him which allowed him to be swept up in a TUPE arrangement against his wishes.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent was represented by the business representative group known as IBEC. The Respondent provided me with written submissions dated the 19th of May 2025. I have additionally heard from a witness for the Respondent. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. All evidence was heard following an Affirmation.

The Respondent rejects that the Complainant was entitled to be re-deployed to another location or subsidiary (as per the Contract of employment) and was instead subject to TUPE. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Findings and Conclusions:

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in the course of this hearing. The representatives each in turn opened up their submission prepared for my benefit. I additionally heard from the Complainant and from the Respondent HR Business Partner.

There is a significant backstory herein and it is clear that the relationship between the Complainant and his Employer has been strained for some time. I have tried to set aside any of those extraneous issues which have no relevance.

Mr. Ward was employed as a mobile Facilities Technician as of the 28TH of April 2008 with Vector Facility Management Limited trading as Aramark Workplace Solutions. The Employer provides Facility Management Services which involves providing a comprehensive range of Facilities Management services that aim to optimise the efficiency, functionality, and sustainability of client facilities across Ireland. From the Complainant’s perspective his supporting role included the provision of carpentry, painting, plumbing, plastering and other trades as required.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was expected to demonstrate mobility and flexibility in this dynamic workplace. This is demonstrated by the fact that in the Complainant’s 2008 Contract of Employment it is stated that as a Mobile Facilities Technician that the normal place of work will be “Ireland”.

The role was a supporting one across all client contracts for the provision of cover for fixed contract employees of the various trades when those employees were sick and on leave. To my mind the Complainant was effectively seconded out to clients as and when his services were required. I note that the Respondent representative did not particularly care for this description, but I think it appropriate in light of the definition:

To send an employee to work somewhere else temporarily, either to increase the number of workers or to replace other workers, or to exchange experience or skills.

The Complainant gave comprehensive evidence as to how his years of working with the Respondent unfolded. Sometimes he would be with a client for a short duration and sometimes for a long duration. He described working for Meteor for three years solid and with Oberstown for two years solid. He returned to the Respondent for re-deployment after each of these tranches of time. The Complainant said that very often the Respondent might lose a client and often might gain a client. It was a fluid workplace where mobility was key.

I understand that relations between the parties might have soured in and around September or October of 2022. Issues arose which appear to have had an Industrial Relations angle. At around that time, the Complainant was removed from Oberstown and was placed with Tesco Ireland. The Complainant took issue with being described as a general operative when working with this client (Tesco) as he was of a technical grade.

The Complainant had previously been assigned to the Tesco facility and had not particularly cared for the placement. That redeployment (in 2021) had only lasted a few weeks, and the Complainant was subsequently re-assigned to another client elsewhere. He was not particularly happy to be returned back to Tesco in the October of 2022, and said as much to his Line Management team.

To his surprise the Complainant was advised in and around the May of 2024 that the role that he was filling in Tesco was being transferred to a third party in circumstances where Vector Workplace and Facility Management Limited had lost the Tesco Contract to a third party. The most surprising part of this information was the fact that the Complainant himself was expected to transfer with the role – and was so advised by his Employer.

I have had no evidence presented to me by the Respondent which tends to suggest that there had been lawful change in the understanding between the parties of the nature of the Contract of Employment under which the Complainant worked. As I understand it, the practise had been that when a secondment comes to an end the Complainant presents with the Employer for a re-deployment. That had been the cycle for the previous sixteen years.

It is hard not to be tempted to think, as the Complainant urged me to do, that the refusal to allow the Complainant return to the workplace in the usual way was an underhanded way of getting rid of an Employee perceived (by the Respondent) to be difficult. I do not need to go there as this is not an Unfair Dismissal claim.

The Complainant was therefore not redeployed by his Employer as he might have expected to be.

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.

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

CA-00063893-001 – I am satisfied that the Respondent unilaterally changed it’s recognition of the role into which the Complainant had been engaged 16 years earlier. The Respondent unilaterally attributed a static role to the complainant without reference to him and contrary to the Contract of Employment. I award the Complainant €1,400.00 direct a payment of compensation up to the value of four weeks remuneration such that is just and equitable in all the circumstances.

Dated: 14/07/2025