Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Iana  Iomer

Bidvest Noonan (Roi) Limited

Complainant

Respondent

 Parties

Iana Iomer

Bidvest Noonan (ROI) Limited

Representatives

  Iana Iomer

 Pooja Sawant Payroll Supervisor

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00069456-002

21/02/2025

The complaint is based on the followed alleged facts:

“On February 12, 2025, I submitted my resignation, giving the required two weeks’ notice, with my last working day set for February 25, 2025. My employer initially accepted this notice. However, on February 20, 2025, I received an email from my employer stating that my last working day had been changed to February 21, 2025, without my consent. This unilateral decision was made without discussion or mutual agreement, effectively shortening my notice period by four days, which directly violates the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973-2005. Additionally, my employer did not offer any compensation for the missing notice period and did not provide a reasonable explanation for this sudden change. This has caused financial and professional difficulties, as I was relying on my full notice period for income and proper transition to my next employment.”

The dispute is about 4 days’ pay.

At the first day of hearing the Respondent stated their position as follows:

Under section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of employment Act, 1973, the complainant alleges that the respondent has shortened her notice period unilaterally and that there was no explanation provided to her regarding this. The Respondent refutes this claim as explanation in relation to the last day of employment was given by Operations Manager over a phone call on the 19th of February 2025, followed by an email on the 20th of February to which the complainant has responded on the 21st of February 2025. There is no evidence of objection or refusal by the complainant regarding this arrangement. Mr. Tiberiu Muresan can confirm that he had a phone call with the complainant on 17 th of February 2025 to discuss the reason and rationale for the last working day to be 21st of February 2025. The complainant refused to work for the two days 24th and 25th of February 2025 as there was a new project that required her to travel to Cork. He also discussed about a payment plan for the monies to be paid to the respondent (Training attended in October and November 2025). Following which there was an agreement to pay the three annual leave days and that the last day of employment would be 21st February 2025.

The first hearing was on the 10th of June 2025. As there was a key witness on holidays the case was put back for another date.

On the 25th of June 2025 the Respondent writes to the Adjudicator to state:

Dear Adjudicator, I am writing to inform that the Respondent, Bidvest Noonan intend to pay the Notice pay due to the complainant. We will be engaging directly with the complainant to address the matter and facilitate the necessary arrangements. Once the dues have been processed and paid, we will email the evidence of payment to PRU. If there is any further information needed from our side, please let us know at the earliest. Thank you. Best Regards, Pooja Sawant

The Complainant stated that her agreed notice period was cut short and claims for 4 days’ pay.

Initially the Respondent stated that the claim should be rejected as the Complainant was unavailable to work on an assignment in Cork and that the earlier date was agreed between the parties. That position was subsequently changed and the Respondent stated that it would pay the disputed notice.

The Respondent in the following email stated that they would pay the due notice. At the hearing the Complainant accepted that it had been paid. There was some confusion about a second complaint relating to training

Thank you for your email.

ADJ-00057155 – Complainant Iana Iomer – The claim is under Minimum Notice & Terms of employment Act, 1973 - unpaid notice – we have communicated to Iana that the 3 days’ notice pay will be processed. Upon receiving payment confirmation from our payroll team, I will send the evidence of payment to Iana and to the pru inbox

ADJ-00059843 – Complainant Inmar Iomer – The claim is under Payment of wages Act - unlawful deduction of wages and is a separate issue.

We kindly request them to be heard separately. My colleague redacted is the point of contact for ADJ-00059843

Thank you.

Best Regards,

Pooja Sawant

The Complainant confirmed that the minimum notice outstanding was paid at the hearing.

The Complainant was asked if she would be withdrawing this complaint and stated she would inform the Commission that she was withdrawing.

The second complaint ADJ-00059843 has not been heard as the Employer was not notice and will be relisted for hearing.

The Complainant at hearing stated that the outstanding notice days have been paid. In those circumstances the complaint is not well founded.

Minimum Notice