Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Aisling  Glavin

Itil Ltd One Works Group

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Emer O Callaghan, JRAP O’Meara LLP

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-00070238-002

24/03/2025

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

CA-00070238-003

24/03/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00070238-004

24/03/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and a witness for the respondent undertook to give evidence under affirmation.  Cross examination was facilitated. 

At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or 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…”.

CA-00070238-002 Terms and Conditions of Employment

The complainant submitted that she was not provided with her terms and conditions in writing.

CA-00070238-003 Terms and Conditions of Employment

The complainant submitted that she was not provided with a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment when those conditions changed.

CA-00070238-004 Employment Equality

The complainant submitted that she was discriminated against on the basis of her age.

In evidence the complainant confirmed that she was given her contract of employment, and she had included it in the supporting documentation that she had submitted prior to the hearing. In relation to the change of employment, she stated that she was made to return to the workplace having previously been working on a hybrid basis.

In relation to the age-related discrimination the complainant outlined how she returned to work following a period of medical leave and annual leave.  She stated that she felt that there was a noticeable difference in how her team lead was treating her. She stated that there was a temporary replacement, an older lady, and she stated that she could tell that this person was being treated differently.  However, the complainant stated that she had no concrete proof of this.

CA-00070238-002 Terms and Conditions of Employment

The respondent submitted that the complainant was provided with a written contract of employment as part of her induction procedure.

CA-00070238-003 Terms and Conditions of Employment

The respondent submitted that the client has required staff to work onsite as part of its post-covid return to work changes.  It was submitted that the complainants place of work was always as outlined in her contract and that had not changed.

CA-00070238-004 Employment Equality

The respondent denied discriminating against the complaint. It submitted that the complainant has not discharged the burden of proof and has not made out a complaint of discrimination.

Having heard the complainant’s case, the respondent chose not to offer any oral evidence but relied upon its written submissions made in advance of the hearing.

CA-00070238-002 Terms and Conditions of Employment

The respondent provided the complainant with a contract of employment which complied with the legislation.  The complainant submitted this contract as part of her pre-hearing submissions. Accordingly, I am satisfied that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00070238-003 Terms and Conditions of Employment

The contract of employment provided to the complainant listed a location as the complainant’s main place of work.  The respondent submitted that its client required staff to return to full time onsite work as part of its post-covid return to work changes.  It submitted that the complainants place of work was always as outlined in her contract and that this had not changed.

I find that the complainants main place of work did not change when the complainant returned to the office full-time. The contract of employment did not indicate that one of her terms was a working on a hybrid basis. 

Section 3 of the Act details the requirements terms of employment required.  Section 3(1A) € and (g) outline the working hours and place of work as follows:

(e) the number of hours which the employer reasonably expects the employee to work—

(i) per normal working day, and

(ii) per normal working week;

…

(g) the place of work or, where there is no fixed or main place of work, a statement specifying that the employee is employed at various places or is free to determine his or her place of work or to work at various places;

The contract of employment states the location of the employment, and this remained the main place of work for the duration of the employees contract, notwithstanding the hybrid working arrangement.  Accordingly, I find that the Act was not contravened.

CA-00070238-004 Employment Equality

The complainant outlined that she felt that there was a noticeable difference between how she was treated and how an older lady was treated.  She stated that she had no concrete proof of the difference in treatment. 

In the case of Valpeters v. Melbury Developments Ltd [2010] ELR 64, the Labour Court found, amongst other things, that “Mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn”.

To my mind the argument that has been put forward by the complainant to support her claim amounts to mere speculation.

Section 85A(1) of the Act, deals with the burden of proof and states as follows:

Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

On the basis of the evidence put forward by the complainant, I find that she has not established facts from which discrimination may be inferred.  Accordingly I find that the complainant was not discriminated against.

CA-00070238-002 Terms and Conditions of Employment

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this matter my decision is that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00070238-003 Terms and Conditions of Employment

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that the Act was not contravened.

CA-00070238-004 Employment Equality

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complainant was not discriminated against.

Terms of Employment – not well founded – no change in terms – Employment Equality – ‘mere speculation’ – discrimination not established.