Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Siobhan  Timon

Sgs Ireland Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

  The claimant represented herself

John Barry Management Support Services (Ireland) Ltd

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00062952-002

18/04/2024

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

CA-00062952-003

18/04/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

CA-00062952-004

18/04/2024

The claimant was employed as a Verification Officer with the respondent from the 26th.Sept.to the 26th.March 2024 when she submits she was unfairly dismissed.She was employed on a Fixed Term/Specific Purpose Contract .According to the respondent she was given a “reasonable expectation” of working on average 19-22.5 hrs. per week .The contract specified that she was “ to provide supplementary support on a casual basis “ and that her exact hours will be dependent on the needs of the business.The claimant’s employment was terminated on the 26th.March 2024 for alleged performance deficits.The claimant denied the allegations of poor performance and submitted that in all she was responsible for 4 errors and that the remaining “errors” related to policies and procedures that she was never advised about.The claimant submitted that the respondent was in breach of the Employment Equality Act 1998 when she was discriminated against with respect to her conditions of employment by reason of her family status (she is married with children).The claimant submitted that the respondent was in breach of the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work )Act , 2003 by treating her less favourably than a comparable permanent employee .The respondent denied all complaints and submitted that it had acted within its rights in deciding the claimant was not suitable to the role of Verification Officer.It was submitted that the claimant had failed to raise a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of family status and that there had been no discriminatory treatment on the part of the company or any of its employees .The respondent submitted that the claimant had not produced any evidence to demonstrate that she was treated less favourably than any other person who is a permanent employee within the company.

 CA-00062952-002

 Discrimination Complaint under Employment Equality Act

Summary of Claimant’s Position:

In her complaint form , the claimant said that she felt victimised by her co-worker Mr.W  and her manager Ms.D for not overseeing her contracted rota of hours and allocating them in accordance with the terms of her contract. She stated that because of not meeting her contracted hours , she felt that she had no other option but to drive to the Galway  centre each month to make up her fortnightly wage.The claimant submitted that this greatly impacted upon her family life. According to the claimant , when she raised the issue with her line manager Ms.D that Mr.W was making up the rota and invariably giving himself Wed – Sat , one week and Mon-Wed. the following week she was met with a text message stating “It would remain the same , according to the needs of the office”.The claimant said this left her with no support or justice and “ being robbed of my contracted hours in my local office “.The claimant asserted that she had to get advice from the WRC and when she related this to her line manager  Ms.D , her attitude changed to her that afternoon. The claimant submitted that she was summoned to her Probationary Review meeting in Galway  on the 27th.March 2024 at 9.00a.m. where she was told that due to her performance and errors , that the company would be terminating her contract. The claimant stated that the  April rota had already been done and given to her – which she queried and was told in a text message response from Ms.D “ for now please go with the current above rota as you need to book your afterschool for April”. The claimant said she had all  of the end of month company error reports and her office R had zero errors in Oct. Nov. Dec.Jan. and only 3 in Feb. 2024.

 In elaborating on this element of her complaints the claimant submitted that she was discriminated against by the respondent with respect to her conditions of employment by reason of her family status. The claimant submitted that she had been discriminated against by her job share equivalent Mr.W – according to the claimant he refused to adequately share the working hours “ for the job we shared equally”.She submitted that her boss Ms.D was allowing him to make up the rota for the R Office , whereby she (Ms.D) did up the rotas for the other offices – she (Ms.D)  was the manager  for a number of offices in the region .The complainant said she raised the matter in March 2024 , as driving to the Galway  office was impacting her family greatly – she had to leave at 7.00a.m. because of the traffic in Galway , her teenagers had to make their own way to school on a busy road and home again  and she had to arrange lifts for her 2 daughters  and book after school places because she was not getting her contracted 19-21.5 hours to work in the R Office as was ”stated in my contract of employment “.The claimant submitted that this impacted her family status and she felt discriminated against by her employers.

In response to the respondent’s contention that the claimant failed to identify a comparator for the purposes of this element of the complaint , the claimant submitted that her form of “family  discrimination was caused by me having to travel to Galway Office to carry out my shifts , as my hours were not being met by the rota allocation in the R office.I was guaranteed 3 working days there when I applied for this position”.She went on to elaborate on  how inconvenient this was  in the context of her  child care arrangements.The claimant said she felt personally discriminated against and asserted  that the treatment impacted greatly on her life.

Summary of Evidence of the Claimant.

  The  claimant said that her probationary review meeting was all to do with the rota devised by Mr.W where he was allocating himself additional hours. The claimant said he did it all to suit himself and when she submitted a Whatsapp querying the hours , Mr.W deleted it.In a written submission received by the WRC on the 12th.May 2024 , the claimant asserted that this showed that Mr.W knew exactly what he was doing was wrong  “ i.e. taking my hours on the monthly  rota and by deleting my messages proved his guilt”.The claimant said that by  having to travel to Galway to pick up hours  her family status was affected. The claimant confirmed she was not pursuing a complaint of victimisation under the Employment Equality Act

 Under cross examnation ,the claimant accepted that her probationary review would have to be arranged prior to the 2nd.March. She was asked if she was advised on the 13th.March that that her probation review would be done before the end of March – she did not recall this. The claimant accepted that there was no reference to job share in her contract of employment and accepted that she was a Part Time worker. The claimant  accepted that her contract did not refer to working solely in R. The respondent’s representative asserted that  the claimant had  accepted she was not a job sharer. He submitted  to the claimant that she was never told she would be working exclusively in R .The respondent’s representative submitted that when the claimant was assigned to other locations she never contended  that she was only employed in the R Office. It  was submitted that the claimant did not contact HR to say she was exclusively assigned to R Office  . The claimant replied that she did not want to rock the boat and she approached her colleague Mr.W about it. It was submitted that  from Sept. to February the claimant  did not contact the respondent to say that she was supposed to get 3 days a week. The respondent submitted that  the claimant  accepted the terms and conditions set out in her contract – and that she was required to supplement the cohort of  permanent staff. It was submitted  that the records indicate that she got in excess of the guaranteed hours provided for in her contract. The claimant  accepted that Mr.W also worked in other locations –  when the claimant was asked to identify who was treated more favourably than her – she did not respond.

The respondent’s representative advised the claimant that her probation review meeting on the 1st.Feb. resulted in an extension of her probation for 2 months owing to errors. The complainant acknowledged that at the meeting she was told about 2 errors. The claimant was asked if she knew the respondent was unhappy – she replied she did not know.  It was submitted by the respondent  that if  the employer was happy they would not have to  extend her probation.It was further  submitted that  the claimant knew  she was subject to ongoing review and she responded there was  nobody reviewing her.

The claimant said that a meeting to discuss errors was never mentioned. The claimant said she did not have access to emails on her days off or when she was in . The claimant was asked if she accepted that her rate of pay was equivalent to other VOs .The claimant said she was not taking an equal pay complaint .

The claimant referred to an error regarding PPS details and being reassured by colleagues “ this happens to all of us”.With respect to the complaints re copying and pasting , the claimant asserted that Mr.W showed her how to do it and she followed his instructions. The claimant said it was her understanding that it was R Office she was assigned to – this would address her child care commitments.

The claimant reiterated that  she was advised  that she was a valued member of staff and the company did not want to loose her.The claimant  complained of a minimum level of training and said training was never offered to her.

The claimant said that she felt she had to travel to G to make up her hours .When she raised the matter with Mr.W – the claimant said he did not want to know.

The claimant set out a chronology of the various exchanges with her line manager and colleague Mr.W in relation to the rota. The claimant reiterated  that at a meeting with her line manager on the 13th.March 2024 , she was told that she was a valuable member of the X team and they would not like to loose her.

The claimant expressed the view that her line Manager did not like the fact that she had gone to the WRC for advice and the she was now showing favouritism to Mr.W – whom she described as her job share equivalent.

CA-00062952-002

 Discrimination Complaint Employment Equality Act

Summary of Respondent’s Position

The respondent’ s representative  submitted that the  claimant believes she has been discriminated against by reason of her family status. Discrimination on the grounds of family status occurs where there is less favourable treatment of one person compared to another person because one person has a family status and the other does not or has a different family status. The claimant maintains she was treated less favourably on the grounds of family status. In the Employment Equality Act, family status means responsibility;

- a - As a parent or as a person in locus parentis in relation to a person who has not obtained the age of 18 years or

 b – As a parent or the resident primary carer in relation to a person over that age with a disability which in such of nature to give rise to the need for care or support on a continuing, regular or frequent basis.

Clearly the claimant would fall within this definition, in that she has constantly made reference to the fact that she had children of school going age. However, it is incumbent upon the claimant not only to show she would be entitled to claim family status as a ground, but also that she was treated less favourably than somebody who does not fall within the family status category, and therein are the grounds for the discrimination. It was submitted that the claimant has not provided a comparator for this purpose.

 The company argues that all staff are employed under the same terms and conditions of employment, and the claimant is maintaining that she was treated differently under her terms and conditions of employment because of her family status.

 The claimant is also contending that Mr W was manipulating the rosters so as to ensure that he would get more hours and that she would not get the sufficient hours which she was offered under her contract of employment. The company would draw the Adjudicator to the fact that within her contract of employment she is advised that it would be ‘’reasonable to expect that she works between 19 and 22.5 hours’’, not that she would be guaranteed these hours. In this regard we know the claimant may well have worked less than that on occasion, but the claimant also worked in excess of those hours, and we are aware that in around March 2024 the claimant was working around 23 hours a week.

We would also draw the Adjudicator’s attention to the fact that within her terms and conditions of employment it states that whilst the claimant is based in R, she  ‘’will’’ be required to travel to other centres as and when required. The R centre is a single booth centre, and the operational practice of the company is that single booth centres are covered by two people rather than having one person cover it completely. It is the company’s contention this was what was done, and additional hours are available by offering other centres when the need arises. It is also of note that the claimant herself indicated she liked being assigned to other centres because it gave her the opportunity to meet with other people in the business and she had company, yet in her written submissions to the WRC the claimant has stated that she would not have taken the job had she known she had to travel to other locations.

 For the claimant to establish that she has been discriminated against on the grounds of family status, she must provide evidence to show that a comparator was being treated more favourably than she was. This, the claimant has not done to date, and yet we are in a position to show that every other person employed by the company in a similar role would have similar terms of conditions of employment.

The R unit itself is a quiet unit and would not particularly busy. The operating hours of that unit are 9.00 to 5.00 pm, five days and 9.00 am to 2,00 pm on a Saturday, so therefore, for additional hours to be given to the claimant she must work in other locations. This the company did and were happy to assign the claimant to other centres where there was a requirement for verification officers. It should be noted that Mr. W also worked in other centres on the same basis as the claimant.

 The company contend that the claimant, whilst establishing she has family status, has not raised a sufficient inference to show that she had been treated less favourably than someone who would not qualify for family status. The company contend that the claimant has not succeeded, in accordance with the requirements under the Employment Equality Acts and in particular Section 85A (1) of the Act, where it states “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 proof the contrary’’.

 The representative referred the Adjudicator to the findings of the Labour Court in the case of Southern Health Board v Mitchell where the Court stated “the first requirement is that the claimant must establish facts from which it may be presumed that the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them. This indicates that a claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption upon unlawful discrimination. It is only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the courts, and they are regarded by the court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to proof there is no infringement of the principle of equal treatment’’.  Based on the above the AO was asked  to find that the claimant has failed to raise a sufficient inference to show that she was discriminated on the grounds of family status. Should it be decided that such an inference has been established, the WRC was requested to  find that there was no discrimination on the part of the company or any of its employees.

Summary of  Evidence of Claimant’s Line Manger

In presenting on behalf of the respondent  Ms.D set out an account of her experience of working with the company and her involvement in managing the claimant . She  summarised the background to her career with the respondent and explained arrangements for the operation of the roster. She referenced the provision in the contract which referenced supplementary support on a casual basis  and said an as and when needed arrangement applied – availability is checked with the Verification Officer – they reply yes or no and are assigned accordingly. She advised that all VOs had the same terms and conditions of employment. The manager  said the complainant did not complain about being assigned outside of R .When the complainant referred to her family and child care responsibilities , she said she would try and reach a solution. Ms.D said that the position was part time – this had been clarified and a 3 day week was anticipated. Ms.D advised that the same job spec applied to all of the respondent’s centres.

The manager advised that some centres do their own rosters – in the instant case Mr.W did the roster -the returns with leave were submitted to her – sometimes she would have to arrange cover.

Ms.D  said the postholder who preceded  the claimant had a family and covered other centres as well as R office.

 The manager  said she had a number of conversations  about performance with the claimant  during the month of January – she referred to errors and told her that she would be extending her probation for 2 months. The claimant said she was going to try and improve .The manager  referenced incomplete medical forms and the cost in terms of time and money that could arise. Ms.D referred to an  incident with a member of the public where the claimant had given out her own email address and the manager  told her not to reply and if the member of the public enquired further to tell him the email did not come through.

Ms.D  referenced the meeting of the 13th.March 2024 – she referred to performance issues relating to correct verification , amendments to personnel files and transfers between the booking system and the Front Office System. In the course of the meeting the claimant said she was never told not to copy and paste . The manager  referenced the distinction between minor errors and serious errors for example gender which would be considered by the Independent Vetting body. In this context she also referred to protected data breaches.  Ms.D  said she explained to the claimant the importance of being correct  and emphasised that the role of the VO   was to verify each document before accepting it.  The claimant asked about her final probation meeting and she advised her that it would be scheduled before the end of the month.  Ms.D  referred to the claimant complaining about Mr.W getting more hours. Ms.D was  asked by her representative did the claimant complain that she was not getting 3 days in R – she replied in the negative. She was asked if the claimant said she did not  like travelling to G – she replied No. The manager  said that she told the claimant that she was unaware that she was unhappy  and that she was a valued member of staff.

The Probation review meeting was organised for the end of March – Ms.D said it had to happen because it could n’t be extended – the claimant was advised that she could be accompanied but she indicated she did not have anyone coming.

At the meeting on the 26th.March , the claimant presented with a number of documents .Ms.D referred to errors and data breaches .The claimant was advised she was not going to pass and her contract would not be extended.The claimant was told that she would be paid to the end of the week and that HR would provide a reference.

The manager  said the claimant received the same training as everyone else on SOP’s , training videos  courses and shadowing other VO’s. She said the claimant did not complain about inadequate training.

 In responding to questions raised by the claimant , Ms.D  confirmed that Mr.W would forward the rosters to her. When the claimant said she felt threatened by the witness’s emails – Ms.D  responded that it was not her intention to threaten the claimant. The claimant said that when she offered to respond to the member of the public who had  emailed her and she received an email telling her not to reply , the claimant said she thought she had been assisting .The complainant suggested to  Ms.D  that this was the wrong way to communicate with staff , the manager responded that protecting staff was her priority. The claimant asserted that there was no paper trail charting administrative errors. Ms.D  responded that she had spoken to Mr.W and he denied showing the claimant how to copy and paste. The claimant asserted that  the manager   told the claimant on the 13th.March that she was a valued member of the team and Ms.D  responded everyone was valued. The manager was asked why   she approved the claimant’s leave for April.The claimant referred to  the absence of paperwork about the claimant’s termination of employment and the manager responded we went through everything with you. it was  suggested to the manager  that she had terminated the claimant’s employment without giving her a chance.

When the manager referred to the Company Handbook , the claimant replied that she had never received a handbook .The claimant told Ms.D  she did not understand the seriousness of the errors. Ms.D  advised that at the termination meeting the claimant alleged that she was being called in because of the issue she had raised about the R rosters. The claimant complained about inadequate training and asserted that she did not have any more errors than anyone else. When asked about why she had not raised this matter earlier , the claimant – according to Ms.D  – responded that she did not want to make a fuss as she was a new employee.It was submitted by the claimant  that she  alleged that she was discriminated against as she queried her hours , she challenged Mr.W and she was a working mother. The manager  suggested that  she was only made aware of the roster issue after she informed the claimant about the probationary review.

Findings and Conclusions :

Decision:

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under s 82 of the Act.

0062952-004 Fixed Term Contract.

 Backdrop

The claimant submitted that she was a fixed term employee and had , in respect of her conditions of employment , been treated less favourably than a comparable permanent  employee.

In her complaint form , the claimant said that she felt victimised by her co-worker Mr.W  and her manager Ms.D for not overseeing her contracted rota of hours and allocating them in accordance with the terms of her contract.

 In a written response to the respondent’s submission the claimant stated that her weekly rota hours were not being met unless she was prepared to travel to the other offices to make up the shortfall in her wages.She maintained that she was at a disadvantage because Mr.W – her” job share equivalent “was making up the rota to suit himself – she said when she questioned this and sought advice from the  WRC , her contract was terminated  due to poor performance.

 The claimant submitted that Mr.W was helping himself to extra hours at her expense. She questioned why he was not asked by the respondent to attend the hearing .She submitted that because Mr.W was helping himself to the hours that suited him , she had to travel to Galway.She submitted that when she took the job – it was to be in R – there was no mention of driving – she ended up having to drive to Galway to make up her hours.

The respondent’s representative submitted that the claimant had a guarantee of 19-22.5 hours and was providing support to permanent staff in a number of centres. She was employed on standard terms and conditions of employment like the permanent VO’s who also moved around. It was the practise in the office for Mr.W to draw up the rosters – it was submitted there was no difference in treatment between the claimant and the other Verification Officers. She was recruited specifically to provide supplementary support for the permanent staff. It was submitted that their terms and conditions of employment were the same – whether permanent , temporary or otherwise. It was submitted that the complainant had confirmed that she had read her terms and conditions of employment , signed the training documents and was treated the same as everyone else.

 It was submitted by the respondent’s representative that the claimant was not a job sharer – that her colleague Mr.W was permanent and that the claimant had no entitlement to a set number of days per week.It was submitted that  traditionally employees set up the rosters themselves .When she went to her line manager about a shortfall in hours , it was accepted that she only got 16 hours and the manager undertook to sort it out.It was submitted that the company was happy for the them to work out rosters themselves.

Summary of  Evidence of Claimant

 The  claimant said that her probationary review meeting was all to do with the rota devised by Mr.W where he was allocating himself additional hours. The claimant said he did it all to suit himself and when she submitted a Whatsapp querying the hours , Mr.W deleted it.In a written submission received by the WRC on the 12th.May 2024 , the claimant asserted that this showed that Mr.W knew exactly what he was doing was wrong  “ i.e. taking my hours on the monthly  rota and by deleting my messages proved his guilt”.The claimant said that by  having to travel to Galway to pick up hours  she was  negatively affected. The claimant confirmed she was not pursuing a complaint of victimisation under the Employment Equality Act .

 Under cross examnation ,the claimant accepted that her probationary review would have to be arranged prior to the 2nd.March. She was asked if she was advised on the 13th.March that that her probation review would be done before the end of March – she did not recall this. The claimant accepted that there was no reference to job share in her contract of employment and accepted that she was a Part Time worker. The witness accepted that her contract did not refer to working solely in R. The respondent’s representative asserted that  the claimant had  accepted she was not a job sharer. He submitted  to the claimant that she was never told she would be working exclusively in R .The respondent’s representative submitted that when the claimant was assigned to other locations she never contended  that she was only employed in the R Office. It  was submitted that the claimant did not contact HR to say she was exclusively assigned to R Office  . The claimant replied that she did not want to rock the boat and she approached her colleague Mr.W about it. It was submitted that  from Sept. to February the claimant  did not contact the respondent to say that she was supposed to get 3 days a week. The respondent submitted that  the claimant  accepted the terms and conditions set out in her contract – and that she was required to supplement the cohort of  permanent staff. It was submitted  that the records indicate that she got in excess of the guaranteed hours provided for in her contract. The claimant  accepted that Mr.W also worked in other locations –  when the claimant was asked to identify who was treated more favourably than her – she did not respond.

The respondent’s representative advised the claimant that her probation review meeting on the 1st.Feb. resulted in an extension of her probation for 2 months owing to errors. The complainant acknowledged that at the meeting she was told about 2 errors. The claimant was asked if she knew the respondent was unhappy – she replied she did not know.  It was submitted by the respondent  that if  the employer was happy they would not have to  extend her probation.It was further  submitted that  the claimant knew  she was subject to ongoing review and she responded there was  nobody reviewing her.

The claimant said that a meeting to discuss errors was never mentioned. The claimant said she did not have access to emails on her days off or when she was in . The claimant was asked if she accepted that her rate of pay was equivalent to other VOs .The claimant said she was not taking an equal pay complaint .

The claimant referred to an error regarding PPS details -  and being reassured by her colleagues  that “ this happens to all of us”.With respect to the complaints re copying and pasting , the claimant asserted that Mr.W showed her how to do it and she followed his instructions. The claimant said it was her understanding that it was R Office she was assigned to – this would address her child care commitments.

The claimant reiterated that  she was advised  that she was a valued member of staff and the company did not want to loose her.The claimant  complained of a minimum level of training and said training was never offered to her.

The claimant said that she felt she had to travel to G to make up her hours .When she raised the matter with Mr.W – the claimant said he did not want to know.

The claimant set out a chronology of the various exchanges with her line manager and colleague Mr.W in relation to the rota. The claimant reiterated  that at a meeting with her line manager on the 13th.March 2024 , she was told that she was a valuable member of the X team and they would not like to loose her.

The claimant expressed the view that her line Manager did not like the fact that she had gone to the WRC for advice and the she was now showing favouritism to Mr.W – whom she described as her job share equivalent.

The claimant  stated that because of not meeting her contracted hours , she felt that she had no other option but to drive to the G centre each month to make up her fortnightly wage. The claimant submitted that this greatly impacted upon her family life. According to the claimant , when she raised the issue with her line manager Ms.D that Mr.W was making up the rota and invariably giving himself Wed – Sat , one week and Mon-Wed. the following week she was met with a text message stating “It would remain the same , according to the needs of the office”.The claimant said this left her with no support or justice and “ being robbed of my contracted hours in my local office “.The claimant asserted that she had to get advice from the WRC and when she related this to Ms.D , her attitude changed to her that afternoon. The claimant submitted that she was summoned to her Probationary Review meeting in G on the 27th.March 2024 at 9.00a.m. where she was told that due to her performance and errors , that the company would be terminating her contract. The claimant stated that the  April rota had already been done and given to her – which she queried and was told in a text message response from Ms.D “ for now please go with the current above rota as you need to book your afterschool for April”. The claimant said she had all  of the end of month company error reports and her office R had zero errors in Oct. Nov. Dec.Jan. and only 3 in Feb. 2024.

Summary of Respondent’s Position

The respondent’s representative submitted that the claimant had a guarantee of 19-22.5 hours and was providing support to permanent staff in a number of centres. She was employed on standard terms and conditions of employment like the permanent VO’s who also moved around. It was the practise in the office for Mr.W to draw up the rosters – it was submitted there was no difference in treatment between the claimant and the other Verification Officers. She was recruited specifically to provide supplementary support for the permanent staff. It was submitted that their terms and conditions of employment were the same – whether permanent , temporary or otherwise. It was submitted that the complainant had confirmed that she had read her terms and conditions of employment , signed the training documents and was treated the same as everyone else.

 It was submitted by the respondent’s representative that the claimant was not a job sharer – that her colleague Mr.W was permanent and that the claimant had no entitlement to a set number of days per week.He said traditionally employees set up the rosters themselves .When she went to her line manager about a shortfall in hours , it was accepted that she only got 16 hours and the manager undertook  to sort it out.It was submitted that the company was happy for the them to work out rosters themselves.

It was submitted that the claimant has maintained she has been treated less favourably than a comparable permanent employee employed by the company. In this regard the claimant was employed as a verification officer on a fixed term contract.

 The claimant has confirmed in her application under this Act, that she was employed on a fixed term contract dated the 26th September 2023. This contract is a standard contract which is issued to all verification officers employed within the company, whether they be permanent, temporary or otherwise.

 The company would argue that the claimant was not denied access to the same terms and conditions of employment as a comparable permanent employee, but believes the claimant is attempting to justify this claim on the basis that she was discriminated against in relation to the hours which she was working.

 The respondent referenced  the provisions of the claimant’s statement of terms in which it says:- “the specific purpose of this contract is to provide supplementary support to the permanent team, on the NDLS contract, as and when required’.

 The statement goes on to state that the claimant was employed as a verification officer and was issued a job description which is the same job description as a permanent verification officer.

 The company is assuming the claimant is maintaining that because she believes she was not getting the same hours as another employee, she was being treated less favourably. However, a permanent employee is guaranteed hours and is also expected to be as flexible as the claimant was in relation to where those hours are completed.

  It was submitted that the claimant has not provided evidence to suggest that she was treated less favourably except for the allegation that Mr.W was manipulating the rosters. In relation to the allocation of  working hours every verification officer is allocated work in accordance with their terms of their statement. It is very clear from the terms of the claimant’s statement that she is a relief / support person providing support as and when required and she is providing that support to the permanent team, and that her expected hours per week would be between 19 and 22.5. We know the claimants’ hours exceeded this.

 It was submitted that  the claimant had not  produced any evidence to show she was treated less favourably than other person who is a permanent employee within the company. The respondent asked the WRC  to dismiss the claimant’s claim.

Conclusion

 The company argues that the claimant clearly believes she was entitled to work more hours than she was being allocated. The claimant’s terms and conditions of employment clearly state the claimant’s working hours and days would be determined on the needs of the business and would be advised to her. Whilst the contract states the claimant could reasonably expect to work between 19 and 22.5 hours per week, that clearly depended on the needs of the business and requirements of cover within the different centres. Therefore, we do not feel the claimant has a basis for a claim.

 In addition the claimant seems to not appreciate the fact that the type of errors she made were not simply every day errors, but were serious and, in terms of the job she was doing, displayed a tendency to not paying proper attention to the work she was doing, doing things she had not be trained to do such as cutting and pasting data, resulting in incorrect documentation to be processed which could result in a breach of data protection, an incorrect license being issued or a license being delayed, because the documentation verification was not accurate, resulting in a breach of the performance terms of the company’s contract with their client.

 It was advanced that the claimant’s attitude to this was clearly indicated in her claim before you today in that she referred to these as “error’s” rather than as serious mistakes, and that these were commonplace within other centres. This we believe shows a lack of appreciation of the importance of the work she was doing. On this basis we are requesting the Chairperson to reject the claimant’s claim.

It was submitted by the respondent’s representative that the claimant was not a job sharer – that her colleague Mr.W was permanent and that the claimant had no entitlement to a set number of days per week.He said traditionally employees set up the rosters themselves .When she went to her line manager about a shortfall in hours , it was accepted that she only got 16 hours and that she would sort it out.It was submitted that the company was happy for the them to work out rosters themselves.

 Summary of Evidence of Claimant’s Line Manger

In presenting on behalf of the respondent  Ms.D set out an account of her experience of working with the company and her involvement in managing the claimant . She  summarised the background to her career with the respondent and explained arrangements for the operation of the roster. She referenced the provision in the contract which referenced supplementary support on a casual basis  and said an as and when needed arrangement applied – availability is checked with the Verification Officer – they reply yes or no and are assigned accordingly. She advised that all VOs had the same terms and conditions of employment. The manager  said the complainant did not complain about being assigned outside of R .When the complainant referred to her family and child care responsibilities , she said she would try and reach a solution. Ms.D said that the position was part time – this had been clarified and a 3 day week was anticipated. Ms.D advised that the same job spec applied to all of the respondent’s centres.

The manager advised that some centres do their own rosters – in the instant case Mr.W did the roster -the returns with leave were submitted to her – sometimes she would have to arrange cover.

Ms.D  said the postholder who preceded  the claimant had a family and covered other centres as well as R office.

 The manager  said she had a number of conversations  about performance with the claimant  during the month of January – she referred to errors and told her that she would be extending her probation for 2 months. The claimant said she was going to try and improve .The manager  referenced incomplete medical forms and the cost in terms of time and money that could arise. Ms.D referred to an  incident with a member of the public where the claimant had given out her own email address and the manager  told her not to reply and if the member of the public enquired further to tell him the email did not come through.

Ms.D  referenced the meeting of the 13th.March 2024 – she referred to performance issues relating to correct verification , amendments to personnel files and transfers between the booking system and the Front Office System. In the course of the meeting the claimant said she was never told not to copy and paste . The manager  referenced the distinction between minor errors and serious errors for example gender which would be considered by the Independent Vetting body. In this context she also referred to protected data breaches.  Ms.D  said she explained to the claimant the importance of being correct  and emphasised that the role of the VO   was to verify each document before accepting it.  The claimant asked about her final probation meeting and she advised her that it would be scheduled before the end of the month.  Ms.D  referred to the claimant complaining about Mr.W getting more hours. Ms.D was  asked by her representative did the claimant complain that she was not getting 3 days in R – she replied in the negative. She was asked if the claimant said she did not  like travelling to G – she replied No. The manager  said that she told the claimant that she was unaware that she was unhappy  and that she was a valued member of staff.

The Probation review meeting was organised for the end of March – Ms.D said it had to happen because it could n’t be extended – the claimant was advised that she could be accompanied but she indicated she did not have anyone coming.

At the meeting on the 26th.March , the claimant presented with a number of documents .Ms.D referred to errors and data breaches .The claimant was advised she was not going to pass and her contract would not be extended.The claimant was told that she would be paid to the end of the week and that HR would provide a reference.

The manager  said the claimant received the same training as everyone else on SOP’s , training videos  courses and shadowing other VO’s. She said the claimant did not complain about inadequate training.

 In responding to questions raised by the claimant , Ms.D  confirmed that Mr.W would forward the rosters to her. When the claimant said she felt threatened by the witness’s emails – Ms.D  responded that it was not her intention to threaten the claimant. The claimant said that when she offered to respond to the member of the public who had  emailed her and she received an email telling her not to reply , the claimant said she thought she had been assisting .The complainant suggested to  Ms.D  that this was the wrong way to communicate with staff , the manager responded that protecting staff was her priority. The claimant asserted that there was no paper trail charting administrative errors. Ms.D  responded that she had spoken to Mr.W and he denied showing the claimant how to copy and paste. The claimant asserted that  the manager   told the claimant on the 13th.March that she was a valued member of the team and Ms.D  responded everyone was valued. The manager was asked why   she approved the claimant’s leave for April.The claimant referred to  the absence of paperwork about the claimant’s termination of employment and the manager responded we went through everything with you. it was  suggested to the manager  that she had terminated the claimant’s employment without giving her a chance.

When the manager referred to the Company Handbook , the claimant replied that she had never received a handbook .The claimant told Ms.D  she did not understand the seriousness of the errors. Ms.D  advised that at the termination meeting the claimant alleged that she was being called in because of the issue she had raised about the R rosters. The claimant complained about inadequate training and asserted that she did not have any more errors than anyone else. When asked about why she had not raised this matter earlier , the claimant – according to Ms.D  – responded that she did not want to make a fuss as she was a new employee.It was submitted by the claimant  that she  alleged that she was discriminated against as she queried her hours , she challenged Mr.W and she was a working mother. The manager  suggested that  she was only made aware of the roster issue after she informed the claimant about the probationary review.

The claimant is asserting less favourable treatment in the conditions of her employment vis a vis a permanent employee in the same position .The claimant did not identify  a comparator  - hypothetical or otherwise being treated more favourably than her.I have examined the contracts issued to the claimant and Mr.W  which confirm the respondent’s contention that with the exception of the inclusion of an end date in the claimant’s contract ,there is no difference in their contracts of employment. Specifically , the claimant is alleging a breach of Section 6 of the Act :

The Law

Section 6 of the Act provides

The following definition applies under the Act “- conditions of employment” includes conditions in respect of remuneration and matters relating thereto (and, in relation to any pension scheme or arrangement, includes conditions for membership of the scheme or arrangement and entitlement to rights thereunder and conditions related to the making of contributions to the scheme or arrangement)”

Ultimately , the claimant is contending that the practise whereby Mr.W devises the roster in such a  way that she is disadvantaged as she has to travel further afield than him to maintain her hours  is a breach of the Act .The claimant’s submissions and evidence indicates that the claimant has conflated the 2 complaints under the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work )Act , 2003 and the Employment Equality Act , 1998.

Both  the claimant’s and Mr.W’s  contract provide for working in  a range of centres covered by the contract.I acknowledge that the claimant may have a legitimate grievance   about incurring  unfair assignments in terms of distance from home  to attend work , I must conclude that this is an industrial relations issue – I cannot find that the compilation of the roster as applies in the instant case , is a condition of employment as defined  in Section 2 of the Act.

Consequently I must conclude that there is no breach of Section 6 .I find the complaint is misconceived and  I do not uphold the complaint.

I find there is no breach of the Act and that the complaint is not well founded