Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Shaun  Cunniffe

Connaught Electronics Ltd t/a Valeo Vision Systems

Representatives

 IBEC

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-00068856-001

27/01/2025

The Complainant gave his evidence on affirmation. Legal submissions were relied upon in his evidence.

The Respondent had one witness who gave evidence, Ms. Clodagh Glanville, HR Manager.  Legal submissions were replied upon at the hearing.

The Complainant was a production operative with the Respondent since the commencement of his employment in 2015.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that they were unfairly excluded from a voluntary redundancy scheme, despite assurances that selection would be based on a “first in, first out” principle. All production operators, regardless of shift, shared identical contracts and duties, and the Complainant argued that shift assignment should not affect eligibility.

The Complainant cited a meeting where management confirmed equal consideration for all staff, supported by a signed letter, dated 21 October 2024, from 15-night shift employees. However, night shift workers were not assessed, which the Complainant described as arbitrary and discriminatory. They rejected management’s justification that customer demand and headcount influenced the decision, noting that night shift numbers had been reduced earlier by the Respondent’s own actions.

Concerns were raised with management, including Simon Johnson, who described the issue as a “misperception.” The Complainant disagreed, pointing to the lack of transparency, no minutes, no written decisions, and inconsistent grievance handling. They emphasized that the complaint was about exclusion, not non-selection, and that the Respondent breached its contractual obligation to treat all employees fairly and equitably.

Cross Examination

During cross-examination, the Complainant acknowledged that the complaint was personal but referred to a collective letter signed by night shift colleagues to illustrate the broader impact. They confirmed they were not a union member and had received advice to pursue the complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, citing breach of contract and lack of fair treatment.

It was put to the Complainant that no headcount reduction occurred on night shift and that voluntary redundancy was triggered by production changes. The Complainant maintained that exclusion from consideration, regardless of headcount, breached their contractual right to equitable treatment. They rejected the suggestion that their complaint was about not being selected, clarifying it was about being excluded without a transparent process. He also confirmed receiving a phone call from management stating that “night shift was not considered.”

Legal Submission

It was the Complainant’s submission that he outlined in his Complaint Form that he was initiating a complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 with a caveat that it may fall under another head of complaint. It was his submission that there was no provision for a general complaint in the Complaint Form, instead requiring a specific complaint.

Clodagh Glanville, HR Manager

It was the witness’ evidence that due to a significant drop in business from September onwards, the Respondent initially proposed 6 days unpaid leave across all shifts. When this was rejected by the union, SIPTU, a voluntary redundancy scheme was introduced. There was engagement with the union throughout the process. At the time, the Respondent was unclear about shift-specific impacts, so applications were invited from all shifts.

It was the witness’ evidence that once production needs became clearer, it was determined that night shift, already the lowest staff, could not afford reductions. Redundancies were therefore applied to day, evening, and weekend shifts only. Selection was based on “first in, first out” per shift to minimise disruption and avoid forced shift changes.

Ms Glanville stated that night shift employees were individually informed of the decision and that no contractual terms were breached. She emphasised that voluntary redundancy does not guarantee entitlement and that the process was informal but consistent with past practice. SIPTU was consulted throughout.

In relation to the Complainant, it was the witness’ evidence that even if shift movement had been possible, the Complainant would not have ranked high enough in service to be selected. She confirmed that roles were made redundant, and the process was fair and transparent within operational constraints.

Cross-Examination

It was the witness’ evidence that night shift employees were not treated differently in the redundancy process, and that their exclusion was based solely on business need. It was put to the witness that all production operators had the same contract, and that excluding night shift staff from consideration constituted unequal treatment. The witness disagreed, maintaining that operational requirements justified the approach.

It was put to the witness that the grievance process should have followed formal procedures, including minute-taking and written responses. The witness stated that the process was handled informally, with individual meetings arranged to explain the situation, and she was unaware of any formal requests for documentation.

It was further put to the witness that the Respondent had discretion over shift assignments and could have moved staff to facilitate redundancy eligibility. The witness responded that while shift transfers were possible, they were typically limited to agency staff or those with minimal service, and not applicable in this case.

The Complainant challenged the fairness of the process and the Respondent’s interpretation of contractual obligations. It was put to the witness that the exclusion of night shift employees breached the commitment to equitable treatment. Ms Glanville did not accept that any contractual terms had been breached and reiterated that the process was voluntary and based on business necessity.

Respondent’s Legal Submission

It was the Respondent’s preliminary submission that the claim was misconceived under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (the “Act”) and that no breach had occurred. The Respondent argued that the Act requires employers to provide a written statement of specific terms of employment, as outlined in Section 3. The claim, which alleged a breach of this section, did not relate to any failure to provide or update such terms, and therefore fell outside the scope of the Act.

Relying on this submission, it rested its defence after the evidence of Ms Glanville.

The Respondent was given an opportunity to respond to the following based on the inclusion of a caveat in the Complaint Form: -

-the Complaint Form is not a statutory form and contained a detailed narrative.

- how would the Respondent be prejudiced?

It was submitted by the Respondent that it had prepared a response to the Act under which the Complaint Form detailed. It was further submitted that the Respondent would be prejudiced where it would have to pivot or change its defence to the complaint.

Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 refers to notification of changes to statement of employment: -

“5.—(1) 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.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a change occurring in provisions of statutes or instruments made under statute , other than a registered employment agreement or employment regulation order, or of any other laws or of any administrative provisions or collective agreements referred to in the statement given under section 3 or 4.”

It was not disputed between the parties that the right to voluntary redundancy was a term of the Complainant’s contract.

The Complainant accepted in cross examination that his complaint fell under the Act. A Complainant must come to the Workplace Relations Commission having identified a specific complaint and not just a general complaint. The Complaint Form is not a statutory form and there is jurisdiction to vary the head of complaint, particularly where the Respondent is on notice of the detail of the complaint. However, there is simply no jurisdiction for the Workplace Relations Commission to investigate and decide upon general workplace issues.

Where the Complainant is not a member of the union, it appears that this complaint arises out of a lack of clear communication to the Complainant.

For these reasons, I find the complaint is not well founded.

I find the complaint is not well founded.