Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Olivia  Roughneen

HSE West

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00070083-001

19/03/2025

The Complainant appeared in her person and relied upon documentary evidence at the hearing.

The Respondent was represented by Mr.  Damian Mullarkey, Employee Relations Manager who presented its submissions. Ms. Sheona Hastings HR Manager gave evidence at the hearing with Ms. Elaine Prendergast, Head of Health & Wellbeing also in attendance.

The witnesses swore an Affirmation at the outset of the hearing. Both parties were availed of the opportunity to cross examine.

The Complainant, Ms Olivia Roughneen, commenced employment on 3 March 2021, during the Covid‑19 pandemic, initially working as a vaccinator in a Mass Vaccination Centre in Mayo. She has remained continuously employed within the same service since that date, working under a series of specific‑purpose contracts.

It was er evidence that she works 35 hours per week, is paid on a fortnightly basis, and her gross fortnightly pay is €2,708.16, with net pay of €1,691.03.

Following a successful interview, the Complainant was appointed to the role of Clinical Lead (“ADON”) on 10 December 2021. She subsequently progressed to her current position of Grade VII Operational Site Manager on 1 July 2023, again following a competitive interview process.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that as a fixed‑term employee she has been treated less favourably than a comparable permanent employee. It was her evidence that her colleague commenced employment with the Respondent at the same time. While she had put herself forward for roles with additional responsibility, at the request of her employer, she now was been punished in terms of her eligibility for a Contract of Indefinite Duration (“CID”).

The Complainant gave evidence of the internal grievance procedures she invoked. In conclusion, she submitted that the Respondent’s interpretation of the legislation delays her eligibility until July 2027, resulting in over six years of continuous service before a CID could be granted.

The Respondent submitted the Complainant had been employed on a series of Specified Purpose Contracts in the post of Temporary Grade VII Vaccination Operational Lead.

It stated that successive contracts had been issued and accepted for the following periods: 13 February 2023 to 30 June 2023, 1 July 2023 to 31 December 2023; 1 January 2024 to 31 March 2024; 1 April 2024 to 31 May 2024; 1 June 2024 to 31 August 2024; 1 September 2024 to 31 December 2024; 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025; and 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026. Copies of these contracts were provided as part of Appendix 1.

The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant’s most recent renewal, covering the period 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026, had been a Specified Purpose Contract issued to cover a vacant post at Temporary Grade VII. They stated that the renewal documentation confirmed that the contract would terminate on 31 December 2026. The objective condition attached to the contract, dated 13 February 2023, had specified that the assignment was “for the purpose of covering a vacant post.”

The Respondent submitted that the contract held by the Complainant had been made on a specified‑purpose basis and was due to cease on 31 December 2026. They added that any extension beyond that date could only be considered through the appropriate senior management approval processes and would depend on the continued need for the temporary post.

The Respondent’s position was that there had been no contravention of the Protection of Employees (Fixed‑Term Work) Act 2003. They maintained that the Complainant had been employed correctly on specified‑purpose contracts, that the objective grounds had been clearly stated, and that all statutory obligations had been met.

Section 1 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 (the “Act”) defines a fixed term employee as:-

“fixed-term employee” means a person having a contract of employment entered into directly with an employer where the end of the contract of employment concerned is determined by an objective condition such as arriving at a specific date, completing a specific task or the occurrence of a specific event but does not include—

(a) employees in initial vocational training relationships or apprenticeship schemes, or

(b) employees with a contract of employment which has been concluded within the framework of a specific public or publicly-supported training, integration or vocational retraining programme;”

Section 7 of the 2003 - Objective grounds for less favourable treatment.

“7.—(1) A ground shall not be regarded as an objective ground for the purposes of any provision of this Part unless it is based on considerations other than the status of the employee concerned as a fixed-term employee and the less favourable treatment which it involves for that employee (which treatment may include the renewal of a fixed-term employee's contract for a further fixed term) is for the purpose of achieving a legitimate objective of the employer and such treatment is appropriate and necessary for that purpose.

(2) Where, as regards any term of his or her contract, a fixed-term employee is treated by his or her employer in a less favourable manner than a comparable permanent employee, the treatment in question shall (for the purposes of section 6(2)) be regarded as justified on objective grounds, if the terms of the fixed-term employee's contract of employment, taken as a whole, are at least as favourable as the terms of the comparable permanent employee's contract of employment”

Section 9 of the 2003 Act addresses successive fixed-term contracts: -

“9.—(1) Subject to subsection (4), where on or after the passing of this Act a fixed-term employee completes or has completed his or her third year of continuous employment with his or her employer or associated employer, his or her fixed-term contract may be renewed by that employer on only one occasion and any such renewal shall be for a fixed term of no longer than one year.

(2) Subject to subsection (4), where after the passing of this Act a fixed-term employee is employed by his or her employer or associated employer on two or more continuous fixed-term contracts and the date of the first such contract is subsequent to the date on which this Act is passed, the aggregate duration of such contracts shall not exceed 4 years.

(3) Where any term of a fixed-term contract purports to contravene subsection (1) or (2) that term shall have no effect and the contract concerned shall be deemed to be a contract of indefinite duration.

(4) Subsections (1) to (3) shall not apply to the renewal of a contract of employment for a fixed term where there are objective grounds justifying such a renewal.

(5) The First Schedule to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001 shall apply for the purpose of ascertaining the period of service of an employee and whether that service has been continuous.”

The Complainant relied on a colleague who commenced employment around the same time. She accepted that the colleague remained at the same grade and was not promoted in the manner the Complainant was. While the Complainant claimed she continued to carry out nursing duties as per her 2021 contract, her evidence, and the sequence of fixed-term contracts, show that she was promoted to a more senior grade in February 2023.

Therefore, I find that she is a fixed-term worker for the purposes of the Act.

The colleague referred to cannot be considered an appropriate comparator, as both parties accepted that she holds a different grade to the Complainant. In addition, no direct evidence was provided regarding the colleague’s permanent status.

Accordingly, the Complainant has not identified a comparable permanent employee under Section 7(2) of the Act.

Without a comparable permanent employee, the test in Section 7 relating to the objective justification for less favourable treatment cannot be applied.

Therefore, this complaint is not well founded

The Complainant’s evidence raised the issue of whether her successive fixed-term contracts contravened Section 9 of the Act. The Respondent addressed this point in both its written submission and its oral evidence, and therefore it is considered within this decision.

The Complainant asserted that she has been in continuous employment with the Respondent since 10 December 2021.

The Respondent argued that upon her promotion in July 2023, she entered a new series of fixed-term contracts. For the purposes of Section 9, they submitted that continuous employment began on 13 February 2023, not December 2021. On this basis, the Complainant would not meet the three-year continuous employment threshold under Section 9(1) at the time she submitted her complaint.

Having considered the evidence, particularly the contracts of employment, it is clear that the Complainant was promoted to Grade VII effective 13 February 2023. She submitted her Complaint Form to the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) on 19 March 2025, which was two years into her continuous employment in the Grade VII role.

For the avoidance of doubt, WRC jurisdiction under the Act is determined by the date the complaint is lodged. Events occurring after that date cannot be considered.

Therefore, as the Complainant had completed only two years' continuous employment at Grade VII, she does not satisfy the requirements of Section 9(1). Accordingly, this complaint is not well founded.

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