ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055373
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Niall Mulchinock | Department Of Housing, Local Government and Heritage |
Representatives |
| Barra Faughnan BL instructed by Chief State Solicitor's Office |
Complaints:
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-00067418-001 | 15/11/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. | CA-00067994-001 | 10/12/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/05/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation. Submissions and documentary evidence was filed in advance of the hearing.
Ms Catriona Coffey, HR Manager with the Respondent and Ms Mildred Dunne, Administrative Officer with the Respondent both swore an affirmation. Submissions and documentary evidence was filed in advance of the hearing.
Two complaint forms were received by the Complainant – the first on 15 November 2024 and a second with the same complaint on 10 December 2024. The Complainant sought to rely on both complaints and if necessary, the December 2024 complaint. The Respondent submitted that the complaint submitted first, should be relied upon particularly where they were a duplicate of the same complaint. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence that he commenced work with the Respondent in 2005 as a Guide/Information Officer. He took part in an interview process in April 2023, but it was his evidence that he was then told by the Respondent he was ineligible for a permanent post. The positions were instead offered to less experienced colleagues, which, according to the Complainant, was not in line with the custom and practice in place. It was the Complainant’s evidence that he was offered a Contract of Indefinite Duration (“CID”) at this time but was told it would not come into effect until 1 January 2025. On this basis, he disputed his ineligibility for a permanent position, stating that such a post would afford him more protection under employment legislation compared to a CID. It was his evidence that the first notification of a CID did not come until December 2024. An email dated 7 December 2023 from the Respondent to the Complainant, offering him a CID, was relied upon. At the Complainant’s request, the Respondent completed a salary certificate in March 2024, which noted that he was “Temporary on Contract. Expected Job End Date: 31/12/2024. The Complainant was cross-examined, and a series of emails were put to him. The Complainant accepted the email of 7 December 2023, which noted there was no probation period, as well as his own email of 20 December 2023 to the Respondent, accepting the contract. It was put to the Complainant that the salary certificate was an error. A letter from the Respondent dated 12 February 2025 was presented to the Complainant correcting this mistake. It was the Complainant’s evidence, however, that the certificate was accurate, as he was not on a CID at the time. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
A number of preliminary points were raised by the Respondent: · The complaint was brought under the incorrect legislation. Where it is his complaint, he ought to have been given a CID in February 2023. The Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 would have been the correct legislation. · On the substance of the complaint and the Complainant’s own evidence, the Respondent has established that the Complainant received a CID. · The complaint is outside the 12-month time limit provided for in the Workplace Relations Act 2015, as it relates to a complaint from February 2023. It was submitted that there was a “sense of confusion” around a permanent contract and a CID. The Respondent relied upon its submissions and the Complainant’s acceptance of the CID. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides complaints must be referred with a period of 6 months which beings on the date of contravention: “(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.” This period may be extended up to a maximum of 12 months where the party can demonstrate reasonable cause. It is noted that there was no application to extend time in this complaint. There was no dispute between the parties that the CID was communicated on 27 November 2023. The Complainant confirmed his acceptance on 20 December 2023. Both complaints, CA-00067418-001 and CA-00067994-001, relate to the same issue, as acknowledged by both parties. Where the complaints were referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 15 November 2024 and 10 December 2024, I find both complaints fall outside the 6-month period beginning on the date of contravention. In the circumstances, where there was no application to extend time, nor was a reasonable cause put forward, I find I have no jurisdiction as per Section 41(6) of the 2015 Act. |
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.
CA-00067418-001 I find the complaint is not well founded. CA-00067994-001 I find the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 22/05/25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Terms of Employment |