ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052862
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Vilius Sakalauskas | Americold Lough Eglish |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Ms. Sonam Gaitonde, Arthur Cox |
Complaints:
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-00064666-002 | 09/07/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00064666-005 | 09/07/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/11/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 9th November 2015. The Complainant is a permanent, full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly wage of €927.81. The Complainant was still in employment on the date of the hearing.
On 9th July 2024, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that the Respondent failed to provide training and that the organisation experienced chronic staff shortages. During the hearing and by subsequent submission, the Complainant clarified his complaint. Herein, he submitted that the Respondent did not amend his job title in the course of his employment and that they did not abide by many of the terms of his employment. In denying these allegations, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant received a comprehensive suite of contractual documentation at or near the commencement of his employment, and that these terms remained accurate throughout the Complainant's employment. They further submitted that the enforcement of these terms is outside the remit of the impleaded legislation.
A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 1st November 2024. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.
Both parties issued submissions in advance of the hearing. On direction of the Adjudicator, supplementary submissions were invited and exchanged following the hearing. Given the nature of the complaint, no witness evidence was called by the parties.
No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaints were raised at any stage of the proceedings. |
Summary of the Complainant’s Case:
By submission, the Complainant stated that his role changed from that of “Warehouse Operative” to “Warehouse Supervisor”. Given that this was a change to a term of his employment, he submitted that as Respondent did not notify him of same in writing, they were in breach of Section 5 of the Act. In addition to the foregoing, the Complainant stated that his job description had now become inaccurate that he had acquired increased responsibilities without ant clarity as to the nature and extent of the same. The Complainant stated that he assumed these additional responsibilities without any training or supervision in relation to the same. In addition to the foregoing, the Complainant submitted that he was routinely expected to work overtime in this role. In this regard, the Complainant submitted that his statement of terms was either silent or vague as to his overtime responsibilities. |
Summary of the Respondent’s Case:
By response, the Respondent denied each of the allegations raised by the Complainant. In this regard, they opened the Complainant’s contract of employment as signed by him. They submitted that the document fully complied with the requirements of Section 3 of the Act and that the Complainant’s allegation in this regard were misguided. Regarding the change to the Complainant’s role, they submitted that the Complainant successfully applied for the role of Warehouse Supervisor in September 2021. Thereafter, the Complainant received a letter of offer stating that the Complainant’s job title and rate of pay had been amended. On foot of the same, the Respondent submitted that they were not in breach of Section 5 of the Act. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00064666-002 Regarding this complaint, the Complainant has alleged that the statement of terms issued by the Respondent did not comply with the requirements of Section 3 of the Act. At the outset of the hearing, the Complainant raised numerous issues regarding alleged defects in the Respondent’s distribution of tasks, health and safety duties and provision of training. Following a discussion as to what complaints are actionable under the present legislation, by subsequent correspondence the Complainant narrowed his complaint to relate to two separate issues, the first of which being that the Respondent did not provide an accurate written term as to his overtime requirements. In this regards, Section 3(1)(J) provides that, “An employer shall, not later than one month after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment, that is to say— … (j) any terms or conditions relating to hours of work (including overtime)” Section 8 of the Complainant’s contract of employment is headed “Overtime” and sets the Complainant’s normal working week, the hours in excess of same that are to be considered overtime and the rate of pay for such hours. Having considered the Complainant’s submission, it is apparent that he has taken issue with the amount of overtime he is expected to complete on an ongoing basis. Notwithstanding the same, it is apparent that the statement of terms issue to the Complainant does set out, in some detail, the terms or conditions relating to overtime. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that this complaint is not well-founded. CA-00064666-005 Regarding this particular complaint, the Complainant has alleged that he was not provided with an updated statement of terms of employment following an amendment to a core term. In particular, the Complainant allege that on his appointment to the role of “warehouse supervisor” he was not provided with an update in accordance with the Act. In this regard, Section 5(1) of the Act provides that, “...whenever a 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…” From the documentary evidence opened by the parties, it is apparent that prior to the Complainant’s appointment to the new role, he was issued with correspondence setting out his new job title and rate of pay. Such correspondence clearly complies with the requirements of Section 5, and as such I find that the complaint is not well-founded. |
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.
CA-00064666-002 I find that the complaint is not well-founded. CA-00064666-005 I find that the complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 20th May 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Terms of Employment, Amendment, Overtime |