ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058052
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Adrian Doroghi | Cis Security |
Representatives | Self | Michael Kingsley, BL, instructed by Caoilfhionn Sheil Mason Hayes and Curran LLP |
Complaint:
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-00070527-001 | 03/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
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.
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 were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.
The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.
While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Mr Adrian Doroghi as “the Complainant” and to Cis Security Limited as “the Respondent.”
The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.
The hearing was assisted with the services of a WRC appointed Romanian interpreter.
Background:
The Complainant is employed by the Respondent as a security officer. His employment transferred to the Respondent on 01/06/2023. He worked for the previous employer since 02/09/2017. He is paid €14.50 per hour. The Complainant submitted his complaint to the WRC on 03/04/2025 alleging that he was not notified of a change to his terms and conditions of employment and that these changes were made without his approval.
The Respondent submits that the changes were notified in writing in advance and therefore the Complainant has no basis for his complaint. In any event the changes took place in January 2024 and the Complainant submitted his complaint to the WRC on 03/04/2025 and is therefore outside the cognisable period provided for in the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation. He outlined that there were no changes made in the new contract but when he used the app which is used to record holidays, he noticed that his holiday entitlement had reduced from 20 days to 14 and he was aware that some colleagues were getting 16 days. The Complainant outlined that when the transfer took place on 01/06/2023 he was working 72 hours per week as his then employer required that. It is the Complainant’s position that these changes were made without his approval and not in line with the contract that he held when he transferred. In response to a question from the Adjudication Officer the Complainant accepted that some of the working hours done for his previous employer were not legal and he noted that he was required to be flexible. The Complainant also noted that before he moved to his new employer there was a lot of flexibility in relation to the taking of annual leave. Employees were able to decide the time they could take leave but his has now changed and it means that the employer decides. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Mr Kinsley, BL, on behalf of the Respondent submitted that a claim under the Terms of Employment Act, 1994 protects an employee against a number of matters. An employee is entitled to certain documentation and there is no claim in that regard. The claim is under Section 5 which is that the employer has changed the contractual provisions without any notification. Mr Kinsley submitted that two points arise. There is no change as alleged by the Complainant. He alleges that the change which he opposed was made without any notification and this change is in relation to his holiday entitlement. The Respondent took over the contract under TUPE on 01/06/2023. A new contract was issued to the Complainant and clause 9 (Annual Leave) of the previous contract and clause 8 (Annual Leave) of the new contract are the same. Therefore, there is no change which would engage the jurisdiction of the WRC under Section 5 of the Act. If there was a claim in relation to any holidays which were due, this should have been submitted under the Organisation of Working Time Act,1997. Consequently, the only matter for consideration is there change and if there is, was the Complainant notified of that change. The second point is that a complaint should have been submitted to the WRC within 6 months from the date of the alleged change. As there was no change there is no date applicable. The Respondent took over the contract in 2023 and it became apparent that employees were working 72 hours per week. This is not permissible. In 2023 the Respondent changed the hours to a four-day shift pattern and notified all employees, including the Complainant in 2023 and the change took place from 01/01/2024. The holiday entitlement for a 4 on/4 off shift is less that the entitlement for a full-time employee as the calculation is made on a pro-rata basis. The Respondent did not implement the change immediately but it did do so in January 2024. There is no change to the annual leave for full time employees as it remains at 20 days. In response to a collective grievance the Respondent, as a gesture of good will, increased the annual leave entitlement to 16 days and the Complainant has benefited from this. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00070527-001: This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. The Relevant Law Section 5(1) of the 1994 Act provides as follows: - “Subject to subsection (2), 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, but not later than— (a) the day on which the change takes effect, or (b) where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month, the time of the employee's departure.” The Complainant submits that he was not notified of a change to his contractual terms in relation to his annual leave entitlement. The Respondent inherited a situation where employees were working in excess of the 48 hours permitted under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The Respondent proposed to change this and also to rectify an error in the holiday entitlement calculation. The employees, including the Complainant, were notified of the proposed changes on 03/11/2023. Various discussions took place during the consultation period and some items raised as part of the collective grievance were resolved. The Complainant continues to dispute his holiday entitlement. From reviewing the contract of employment I find that there is no ambiguity that the holiday entitlement is calculated in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The proposed changes were notified to the Complainant and therefore I have decided that his complaint is not well-founded. |
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-00070527-001: I have decided that this complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 19-11-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Annual leave entitlement. |