ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00056243

Parties:

Complaints:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  27/02/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, 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. The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.        The parties gave evidence by oath or affirmation and were given the opportunity to be examined and cross examined on their evidence.

Background:

The complaints are that the Complainant did not receive a written contract of employment, that as a part-time worker he was treated in a manner less fairly than full-time colleagues and that he was constructively dismissed from his employment.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant gave sworn evidence and outlined the history of his employment and his grievances in relation to his employer.

He was employed as a greenskeeper from 13th June 2022 until 8th November 2024.  He worked 24 hours per week and was paid €304.80.

He never received a written contract of employment.

He contends that he was unfairly treated and treated in a discriminatory manner when compared to the full-time employees employed on the same or similar tasks that he was employed to do.  He believes they would not be reprimanded for the similar situations he was in, such as getting stuck on soft ground following adverse weather conditions.

He was reprimanded in July 2024 when he had a flood in his kitchen at home and he did not let his supervisor know he could not come into work until later that afternoon.  He did not wish to disclose his domestic situation and he now realises this was a mistake, that he should have informed the Supervisor.

When he was called to a meeting to discuss this, he was surprised to see a reference to an incident in March 2024 regarding machinery being stuck on soft ground.  He refused to sign the minutes of the meeting as he believed this was a common occurrence and other colleagues had been stuck on soft ground after bad weather.  He was told he was receiving a verbal warning.

The next incident happened on 9th August 2024 when he was called to a meeting by his Supervisor and told there was a complaint about him driving machinery in an erratic manner.  He was unfairly then removed from driving machinery.  He was also accused of not following instructions.  This was in relation to using a strimmer to cut thistles instead of a hedge strimmer.

He was sent out to hand rake bunkers as he was not allowed to use machinery.  He then fell over a wasps nest and suffered an allergic reaction to stings and was out of work for 2 days.

He contacted the Irish Human Rights Commission who told him he did not have to stay in work if the treatment of him was having an affect on his disability.  So he left work early on 19th August 2024.

He tried to raise a grievance a number of times, and when he believed his grievance was finally going to be heard, he discovered the meeting turned into a disciplinary meeting.  He submitted a number of text messages, and letters to illustrate the situation.

Letter dated 20th September 2024 sent by the Employer to the Worker:

You have not attended for work since 19th August when your duties were amended for health & safety reasons, and you nave not made contact to explain your non-attendance since then. This means that you are currently on Unauthorised Absence which is very serious and is o matter we must resolve as soon as Possible. lf you are unhappy about any particular issue or decision then the correct approach is for you to use our Grievance Procedure. That states no precipitative action should be taken until all stages of the procedure have been fully exhausted and duties should be carried out under protest if necessary. You have been provided with a copy of the Grievance Procedure as you requested, but have not submitted a grievance, and you declined to attend the meeting we suggested. This unauthorised absence cannot continue and I am therefore arranging a meeting for us to discuss your absence, the reasons for it, and how we can address these. I should stress that this is an absence review meeting, not a disciplinary or grievance meeting. I must also stress that this is not an optionaI meeting - as an employee absent from work you are required to attend a meeting to discuss your absence. Failure to attend the meeting and continued non-attendance at work will give us cause to consider whether you have in fact abandoned your employment (with the Golf Club).

This letter gave him a number of options for dates to attend a meeting.  He would not attend the meeting as he believed his employer had breached a number of employment laws.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The complainant was employed as a general worker on the course staff from June 8, 2022, to November 8, 2024. The complainant has alleged unfair treatment and discrimination in comparison to their full-time colleagues, specifically in relation to work assignments, grievance handling, and disciplinary actions. The respondent refutes these allegations and submits that all actions taken were fair, consistent, and in accordance with workplace policies.

Complaints

1. Claim CA-00068387-001:

The Claimant claims that “I did not receive a statement in writing on my terms of employment”.

2. Claim CA-00068387-002:

The Claimant claims that “I am a part-time employee and have, in respect of my conditions of employment, been treated less favourably than a comparable full-time employee”.

3. Claim CA-00068387-003:

The Claimant claims that “I had to leave my job due to the conduct of my employer or others at work (Constructive dismissal) I have at least 12 months service.

Claim CA-00068387-001:

The respondent (employer) submits that the complaint made by the claimant (employee) to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 1 January 2025 is out of time under Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

Statutory Time Limit:

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 states that a complaint must be submitted within six months of the alleged contravention.

Application to the Case:

1. The claimant commenced employment on 16 June 2022.
2. The alleged contravention relates to the failure to provide written terms and conditions, which should have been provided within one month of the start date.
3. The latest possible date of contravention was therefore July 2022.
4. The six-month deadline for submitting a complaint expired in December 2022.
5. The complaint was only submitted on 1 January 2025, which is significantly beyond the statutory limits.

Jurisdictional Issue:

Given that the complaint was made outside the maximum 12-month extension permitted by law, the respondent submits that the WRC does not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint. The respondent respectfully requests that the adjudication officer dismiss the complaint on this basis.

CA-00068387-002: Allegation of Unfair Task Assignments

The complainant alleges that upon returning to work on 7th August 2024, they were unfairly assigned raking duties on 14th August 2024. These duties, however, are standard responsibilities for all course staff, and the assignment of such tasks does not constitute differential treatment. The complainant’s role involved light machinery operation, including the Bunker Rake, small tractor, and Cushman utility vehicle, and there is no evidence that other workers were treated preferentially. Furthermore, the assignment of specific tasks is within the employer’s discretion, based on operational requirements. The complainant has provided no substantive evidence that they were singled out or subjected to tasks beyond their job description.

Claim CA-00068387-002: Allegation of Differential Treatment in Disciplinary Action

The complainant raises concerns regarding their treatment following a tractor incident on 25th March 2024, alleging they were unfairly singled out. The facts show that the complainant drove a tractor to an area where they had no operational need to be, resulting in the vehicle becoming stuck on a severe slope near the 13th tee box, approximately 70-80 meters away from the nearest designated fairway for divot repairs. This action warranted investigation, as no valid explanation was provided by the complainant despite multiple requests. The respondent asserts that all disciplinary procedures were conducted in line with standard practices and that the complainant’s treatment was consistent with that of other employees who failed to follow proper work instructions.

Claim CA-00068387-002: Allegation of Procedural Delays and Exclusion from Workplace Processes

The complainant asserts that their initial grievance raised on 20th August 2024 was ignored until 2nd September 2024, leading to procedural delays. The respondent refutes this claim and states that the matter was handled in a timely and appropriate manner, given the club's operational structure and need to organize relevant meetings. The respondent further notes that: a) The complainant was provided with all relevant workplace policies and terms of employment once the grievance was raised. b) The delay in response was due to the need to coordinate an appropriate grievance meeting, and not an intentional exclusion of the complainant from workplace processes. c) The complainant failed to attend the scheduled grievance meeting on 29th August 2024, despite repeated efforts by the respondent to facilitate a resolution.

Claim CA-00068387-002: Allegation of Bullying and Exclusion

The complainant alleges that they experienced bullying, exclusion, and unfair treatment, yet no formal complaint was lodged regarding this issue prior to the submission to the WRC. The respondent has no record of prior complaints regarding bullying from the complainant before this claim. Additionally: a) The respondent has grievance procedures in place that the complainant was aware of but did not engage with appropriately. b) The complainant had a history of walking off the job rather than using the internal grievance process. c) Efforts were made to mediate concerns through an external HR consultant on 30th October 2024, but the complainant failed to engage with this process. d) The respondent contends that any claims of exclusion or differential treatment lack supporting evidence and appear to be an attempt to justify prolonged periods of unauthorized absence from work.

Claim CA-00068387-002: Allegation Regarding Inclusion of a Past Incident in Grievance Meeting

The complainant objects to the inclusion of an unrelated incident from March 2024 in a grievance meeting, arguing that this was unjustified and contributed to their perception of unfair treatment. However, the respondent maintains that: a) The incident was relevant to the complainant’s work performance and history of not following proper procedures. b) Employers have a right to review past incidents when assessing ongoing performance issues, particularly when they demonstrate a pattern of conduct.

The complainant was given an opportunity to respond but failed to provide any satisfactory explanation.

Claim CA-00068387-003: Failure to Engage and Abandonment of Position

The complainant failed to engage constructively in resolving their complaints and took an unauthorized leave of absence from 19th August 2024 onward, without providing medical certification or notifying the employer appropriately. The respondent sought to clarify the complainant’s status through written correspondence on 4th November 2024, requesting confirmation of their intent to return to work. No response was received by the 8th November 2024 deadline, leading to the reasonable conclusion that the complainant had abandoned their position. The complainant was notified of their right to appeal this decision within five working days, which they did not do. The respondent further notes that:

1. a) The complainant failed to attend scheduled grievance meetings despite multiple invitations.
2. b) The external HR consultant’s attempt to mediate on 30th October 2024 was ignored by the complainant.
3. c) The complainant was issued full payment for their notice period and outstanding leave entitlements, in compliance with employment regulations.

Conclusion

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) requires that all complaints be substantiated by objective and verifiable evidence rather than speculation or indirect statements. Established case law, including decisions under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 and the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015, confirms that claims must be supported by tangible proof. The Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case. As outlined in relevant case law, it is only when a prima facie case has been established that the burden shifts to the Respondent to prove that no infringement of the principle of equal treatment has occurred.

The Labour Court, in Melbury v Valpeters EDA0917, clarified the interpretation of Section 85A, stating:

"…provides for the allocation of the probative burden in cases within its ambit. This requires that the Complainant must first establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred. What those facts are will vary from case to case and there is no closed category of facts, which can be relied upon. All that is required is that they be of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination. However, they must be established as facts on credible evidence. Mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn. Section 85A places the burden of establishing the primary facts fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule.”

In this instance, the Complainant has failed to present facts of “sufficient significance” to raise a presumption of discrimination. Simply being a member of a protected group does not in itself render certain acts discriminatory. Furthermore, the Complainant has not provided evidence of a valid comparator or demonstrated that the actions in question were not transparently attributable to a non-discriminatory cause.

Assertions without supporting evidence do not meet the evidentiary threshold required under Section 85A. The Golf Club has acted fairly, consistently, and in compliance with workplace procedures and employment law. The respondent has made repeated efforts to engage with the complainant, facilitate grievance meetings, and mediate concerns, yet the complainant failed to participate in these processes constructively. The complainant’s allegations of differential treatment, bullying, and procedural delays lack substantive evidence. The tasks assigned to the complainant were standard duties, and the disciplinary actions taken were based on justifiable concerns regarding workplace conduct and procedural compliance. Furthermore, the complainant’s failure to attend scheduled meetings, failure to justify their extended absence, and refusal to engage with mediation efforts demonstrate a lack of commitment to resolving their grievances. The Respondent has a strong defence against the claim of constructive dismissal. The evidence indicates that the employer acted fairly and reasonably, while the Claimant failed to engage with grievance procedures and ultimately abandoned their role. The respondent requests that the WRC dismiss the claim, as the evidence demonstrates that all actions taken were reasonable, consistent, and in accordance with employment standards.

The respondent respectfully requests that:

1. a) The claim of unfair treatment be dismissed due to lack of substantive evidence.
2. b) The adjudicator finds that the complainant failed to engage in grievance and mediation procedures.
3. c) The adjudicator finds that the termination of the complainant’s employment was a reasonable conclusion based on their abandonment of position

Findings and Conclusions:

ADJ-00068387-001         Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

This is a complaint made pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. The respondent asserts that the complaint made on the 1st January 2025 is out of time as the limitation period is six months after the end of the first month of employment.

The question here is whether section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act has restricted the limitation period for breaches of section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act.

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act provides: “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.”

Section 3(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act provides

“An employer shall, not later than 1 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”.

In this case, it is a fact that a statement was not provided to the complainant. The essence of the respondent’s submission is that a contravention of section 3(1) occurs when the 1 month period expires and no statement is provided. The contravention is the first day after the initial 1 month period of employment, where no statement is provided. The argument appears to also submit that there is no subsisting contravention on the second day after the end of the 1 month period or on later days. The respondent submits that the complaint must be referred to the Workplace Relations Commission within six months of this single day of contravention.

Section 3(5) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act provides for the following ongoing obligation: “A copy of the said statement shall be retained by the employer during the period of the employee's employment and for a period of 1 year thereafter.”

Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, as amended by the Workplace Relations Act, reads:

“(1) An employee shall not be entitled to present a complaint under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in respect of a contravention of section 3, 4, 5 or 6, if the employer concerned has —

(a) complied with a direction under section 6A given in relation to the contravention before, on or after the commencement of section 8 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, or (b) been given a direction under that section in relation to the contravention and the period specified in the direction within which he or she is required to comply with the direction has not yet expired.

(2) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 3, 4, 5 or 6 shall do one or more of the following, namely —

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b) either —

(i) confirm all or any of the particulars contained or referred to in any statement furnished by the employer under section 3, 4, 5 or 6, or

(ii) alter or add to any such statement for the purpose of correcting any inaccuracy or omission in the statement and the statement as so altered or added to shall be deemed to have been given to the employee by the employer,

(c) require the employer to give or cause to be given to the employee concerned a written statement containing such particulars as may be specified by the adjudication officer,

(d) order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act.

Section 7 covers contraventions of sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 that occur during the employment relationship. Subsection 1 addresses situations where a WRC inspector or adjudicator have given directions regarding compliance with the Act, to which the employer has subsequently complied with. Subsection 2(b) allows an adjudication officer to confirm particulars of a statement, or to alter or add to the statement. Subsection 2(c) allows the adjudicator to require an employer to provide the employee with a statement.

If the respondent’s submission is correct, this multiplicity of interventions in respect of a breach of section 3 could only be exercised in the limitation period following the single day of contravention at the end of the initial one-month period of employment.

The Terms of Employment (Information) Act transposes Directive 91/533/EC, the ‘Written Statement’ Directive. It recites Article 117 of the Treaty and point 9 of the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers. Article 2 provides that an employer shall notify the employee of certain essential aspects of the employment relationship. Article 3 provides for the means of information and that the information stated in Article 2 may be given to the employee in certain forms, for example a written contract or letter of engagement. Article 3 refers to this information being provided not later than two months from the commencement of employment. Article 8 requires member states to introduce measures to allow employees to pursue claims via a judicial process. In Kampelmann and Others v Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe (C-253/96 to C-256/96), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Article 2 is directly effective as against the State and against bodies and authorities under the control of the State.

If the respondent is correct, the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, as amended by the Workplace Relations Act, has curtailed the obligations provided in Article 2 of the Directive to a contravention arising on the first day after the end of the one-month period.

In Seclusion Properties Ltd v O’Donovan (DWT14114), the Labour Court held as follows:

“It is clear that the obligation on domestic courts and tribunals to interpret national law in conformity with a Directive applies ‘as far as possible’. That is to say, it cannot serve as a basis for an interpretation of national law contra legem. As was pointed out by the CJEU in Dominguez v Centre Informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, a conforming interpretation can only be arrived at by taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, with a view to ensuring that the Directive in question is fully effective and that an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by the Directive is achieved.”

Section 3(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act is clear that an employer shall provide the employee with a statement within one month of the start of the employment relationship. Where this is not provided, the employee has recourse to the Workplace Relations Commission where section 7(2) enables the adjudication officer to take steps to amend or add to a statement, to require a statement be provided or to award financial redress.

The multiplicity of interventions allowed by section 7(2) shows that the contravention of section 3 is a subsisting contravention that endures so long after the initial one-month period the employee remains an employee not in possession of a statement. If the respondent’s submission was correct, the Oireachtas would have clearly stipulated that the interventions permitted by section 7(2) may only be made for a contravention arising on a single day after the end of the initial one-month period of employment.

If the respondent’s submission is correct, section 7(1) is superfluous. This provision prevents an adjudication officer from hearing a complaint where the employer has complied with a previous direction or determination. This section would not be necessary if there could only be one contravention of section 3 arising on a single day. Instead, section 7(1) presents the contravention as a subsisting breach and prevents an employee from submitting a fresh complaint where the employer has complied with the outcome of a previous complaint.

While the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, as amended by the Workplace Relations Act, is clear, in my view, that a breach of section 3 is a subsisting breach, this conclusion is fortified by the application of EU law. First, the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, as amended, does not provide that the only date of contravention is the day after the end of the initial one-month period. Applying a conforming interpretation to sections 3 does not, therefore, require an impermissible contra legem interpretation of the section. Article 2 of the Directive requires that a statement be provided by the employer to the employee and does not limit this requirement to any time period within the employment relationship. Reading section 3(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act in conformity with Article 2 of the Directive leads to the conclusion that the obligation to provide the statement subsists throughout the employment relationship. Article 8 of the Directive requires that employees have recourse where there is a breach and this requires section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act to be read as referring to the failure to provide a statement as a subsisting breach.

For these reasons, the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, as amended by the Workplace Relations Act, provides that a contravention of section 3 occurs where, after the expiry of the initial one-month period of employment, the employee has not been provided with a statement. The contravention of section 3 is a subsisting contravention. If no statement is provided at any stage during the employment relationship and this comes to an end, the employee may refer a complaint within six months of the last day of contravention, i.e. the last day of their employment.

In the circumstances of this case, I find the complaint to be well founded and award the complainant redress that is just and equitable, in this case €610, the equivalent of two week’s pay.

CA-00068387-002           Protection of Employees (Part-time) Work Act

Section 9 of the Act provides that a part-time employee shall not, in respect of his or her conditions of employment, be treated in a less favourable manner than a comparable full-time employee.                      In this instant case, the Complainant is aggrieved that he was taken to task and reprimanded for a number of transgressions, including driving machinery in a dangerous manner, not letting his supervisor know when he was not turning up for work, and for being in an area not normally where he would be resulting in a tractor becoming stuck on soft ground.  The Respondent stated that the  Complainant was not unfairly singled out in relation to the tractor incident on 25th March 2024.   I note the Respondent’s assertion that all disciplinary procedures were conducted in line with standard practices and that the complainant’s treatment was consistent with that of other employees who failed to follow proper work instructions.  I find the complaint to be not well founded.

CA-00068387-003           Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

In this case, the Complainant contends that the behaviour of his employer was such that he had to resign from his employment, in a case of constructive dismissal.

The definition of constructive dismissal as provided for in the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended) is:

“the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer”.

In a claim of constructive dismissal, the onus of proof rests with the Complainant to prove that the conduct of the employer was so unreasonable that that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer, and the employee is justified in leaving.

In such cases the critical issue is the behaviour of the employer, although the employee’s behaviour must also be considered. Generally, the criterion regarding the behaviour of the employer is taken to mean something that is so intolerable as to justify the complainant’s resignation, and something that represents a repudiation of the contract of employment.  In effect the question is whether it was reasonable for the employee to terminate the contract on the basis of the employer’s behaviour.

The burden of proof, which is a very high one, lies on the complainant. He must show that his resignation was not voluntary.  As is set out in Western Excavating ECC Limited –v- Sharp, the legal test to be applied is an “and / or test”. Firstly, I must look at the contract of employment and establish whether or not there has been a significant breach going to the root of the contract.

“if the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance”

If I am not satisfied that the “contract” test has been proven then I am obliged to consider the “reasonableness” test

“The employer conducts himself or his affairs so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer, then the employee is justified in leaving”

Furthermore, there is a general obligation on the employee to exhaust the Company’s internal grievance procedures as is set out in McCormack v Dunnes Stores, UD 1421/2008:

“The notion places a high burden of proof on an employee to demonstrate that he or she acted reasonably and had exhausted all internal procedures formal or otherwise in an attempt to resolve her grievance with his/her employers. The employee would need to demonstrate that the employer’s conduct was so unreasonable as to make the continuation of employment with the particular employer intolerable.”

The importance of exhausting the internal grievance processes was also highlighted in Terminal Four Solutions Ltd v Rahman, UD 898/2011:

“Furthermore, it is incumbent on any employee to utilise all internal remedies made available to her unless she can show that said remedies are unfair.

In this instant case, the Complainant walked out of his employment on 19th August 2024 and did not return despite the Respondent making many efforts to give him the opportunity to air his grievances, including the offer of mediation by a HR external Consultant.  I note his frustration at the delay by the Respondent to respond to his requests for a grievance meeting.  However, this does not, in my view constitute intolerable behaviour on the part of the Employer.  The Complainant has not discharged the onus of proof to show that he was constructively dismissed and I find the complaint to be 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.

ADJ-00068387-001         Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 requires that I make a decision in relation to the redress provisions in that Act.

Based on the findings and reasons outlined, I have decided that the complaint is well founded.  I award the complainant redress that is just and equitable, in this case €610, the equivalent of two week’s pay.

CA-00068387-002           Protection of Employees (Part-time) Work Act 2001

Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 requires that I make a decision in relation to the redress provisions in that Act.

Based on the findings and reasons outlined I have decided that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00068387-003           Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the redress provisions of that Act.

Based on the findings and reasons outlined, I have decided that the complaint is not well founded.

Dated:   02nd of May 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: