Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Patrick  Donohoe

MSD International GmbH trading as MSD Carlow

Representatives

Self-represented

Mairead Crosby , Ibec

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-00070132-001

20/03/2025

The complainant wrote on the complaint form that he was not notified in writing of changes to his terms of employment. He outlined in the form the specific details of the structural changes within the company. In the written submission before the hearing, the complainant included other breaches of legislation including that the initial contract issued in October 2019 was unsigned by the respondent.

Summary of Mr Donohoe’s Evidence

Mr Donohoe, the complainant, has been employed as a Procurement Specialist since November 2019. He submitted that structural change took place within the company in 2023. He became part of a new team without prior notification or advance discussion.

The changes included reporting to a U.S based manager instead of a site-based manager. He said the nature of his work changed from site-based Carlow work to regional work outside of Carlow and in Europe.

He submitted that the initial travel requirements of 10% agreed in 2019 increased to a commitment of 25% due to the structural changes. The nature of the work changed from well-defined to open ended with the assignment of project work across other sites.

His initial role was mainly site based, with group meetings off-site making up the 10% travel. He now does more project work with a liability of 25% travel within regional locations. He said this was a significant change and there was no definition of flexible working within the company, if attending another site. He raised the structural changes with his manager when changes were initiated and then raised as a grievance. He said he sought to pro-actively engage due to the lack of detail. He said he submitted a proposal which was rejected by management.

He said he received an addendum to his contract on 1st August 2025, which he refused to sign due to a lack of consultation and engagement from management.

Under cross-examination he was questioned on whether he consented to increase his travel to 25%. It was also put to him that he did not travel up to 25% of the time and that he was advised by HR to discuss travel arrangements with his manager. It was put to him that his title did not change. He replied that there are changes to the nature of his role which is why he received a revised job description.

It was put to him that his original contract allowed for a change of reporting. He replied that he had an expectation of consultation and proper notification.

In the written submission and at the hearing, the respondent representative submitted that the new complaints in the complainant’s written submission could not be the subject of an adjudication hearing as they were not on the complaint form. 

On the Terms of Employment Act complaint, the respondent representative submitted that the respondent was following the Act. Arising from the internal grievance process, an addendum was issued to the complainant’s contract on 1st August 2025. This addendum reflected his title, level, reporting line and most up to date job description.

The respondent representative submitted that the structural changes in 2022/2023 did not impact substantially on the complainant. An external HR Consultant had examined his grievance. One of the outcomes was that the addendum should be issued.

Without prejudice to the position that the company were compliant, the respondent representative referred to the Component Distributors (CD Ireland) Ltd v. Brigid Burns, TED 1812 and Hall v. Irish Water TED 161 to support the premiss that mere technical breaches could not justify awards of compensation.

Summary of Ms Sharkey’s Evidence

Ms Sharkey confirmed that the initial contract in 2019 was a standard one and that the advice from the restructuring management team was that the structural changes did not require changes to contracts.

She said the complainant was requested to engage with his manager on his travel issues. The witness confirmed that the addendum to the contract arose from the grievance process. His original contract was that he reported to a director and the restructuring changes were minor and not fundamental to his role. Ms Sharkey also clarified that the company were unaware on 1st August 2025 when the addendum issued that the complainant had already made a complaint to the WRC on the same issue.

Ms Sharkey said that currently the complainant was mainly working remotely.

Under cross-examination she was asked about the restructuring teams’ rationale that his role had not materially changed. The witness replied that these matters would have been assessed by the restructuring team.

Preliminary Issue of Complaints for Adjudication

The complaint form clearly describes that the complainant was bringing a complaint that he was not issued with notification of changes to his terms. There is no reference on the complaint form to his original contract dating back to October 2019.

A complainant, for obvious reasons, is not permitted to add new complaints prior to the hearing that were not identified on the complaint form and were not on notice to the respondent.

For the reason outlined, I decide I have no jurisdiction to hear complaints other than the complaint identified on the complaint form.

The Law

Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 as amended provides for notification of changes. It states that whenever change is made or occurs in any of the particulars 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 may be thereafter, but not later than-

(a)   the day on which the change takes effect, or …….

Finding

There is a conflict between the parties on whether there has been a change to the particulars of statement. The complainant outlined in testimony the extent of the changes to his role. The respondent side submitted that any changes were minor and are captured in the flexibility of the original contract in 2019.

The terms as outlined in Section 3 (1A) of the Act include the ‘place of work’ along with ‘the title, grade, nature or category of work for which the employee is employed’ or a ‘brief specification or description of the work’.

The complaint was received by the WRC on 20th March 2025. The respondent submitted that the addendum issued on 1st August 2025. Although I accept that the respondent had no notice of the WRC complaint at that time, the addendum is helpful as assistance to establish whether there has been a change to particulars.

The addendum includes the following wording-

‘Work with a regional mindset and flexibility supporting multiple sites as needed, with up to 25% regional travel.’

The revised job description that issued as part of the addendum is also headed as follows-

Regional Strategic Sourcing Projects

P2 Specialist- Individual Contributor

On a plain reading of Section 3 (1A) of the Act, the terms and any changes to them include the place of work along with the nature of the work and a description of the work. I find that there has been a breach of the Act in that the complainant did not receive written notification of the changes at the time they occurred. The addendum states that the changes take effect from 29th July 2025 and it issued on 1st August 2025.

Notwithstanding the above, the complainant gave testimony that the changes arose from the restructuring process in 2023. It appears from the evidence that not all changes have been implemented and/or enforced by management. The onus under the Act is still on the respondent company to issue written notification at the time of the changes.

When the complaint was made to the WRC in March 2025, there was a subsisting breach due to the lack of notification of changes to terms. In An Animal Carer v. A CharityADJ-0009820, it was found that a breach of the Act subsists if the employee remains not in possession of a statement or in this case changes to the statement.

Redress

I have considered the case law submitted by the respondent on no award of compensation when mere technical breaches arise. In this case, the complainant gave testimony of having to raise these issues under the grievance process and that he operated under an undefined role for up to 2 years. Given these circumstances, I consider the breach to be quite serious and more than a mere technical breach.

I decide that the complaint is well founded. I order the employer pay to the employee the equivalent of 4 weeks’ pay which is €6,136.00. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a statutory right and is not remuneration or arrears of remuneration.

I decide that the complaint is well founded. I order the employer pay to the employee the equivalent of 4 weeks’ pay which is €6,136.00. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a statutory right and is not remuneration or arrears of remuneration.

Notification of Changes