ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058259
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Complainant | A Respondent |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Ms Niamh Daly IBEC |
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-00070708-001 | 09/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/10/2025 &09/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
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 hearing was conducted in person in Lansdowne House.
I have decided that special circumstances exist to anonymise this decision, namely the significant overlap between this complaint and a dispute referred under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act. The factual matrix of this complaint is closely linked to a dispute under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 involving the same parties. Publication of the identities of the parties to this complaint would reveal their identities in relation to the industrial relations dispute, which as a matter of law, was investigated in private.
The Complainant attended the hearing and represented himself. The Complainant was accompanied at hearing by his father. The Respondent was represented by IBEC and the Employee Relations Manager together with a Director attended on behalf of the Employer.
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute. I can confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into these complaints.
I have given careful consideration to the submissions and to the evidence adduced at hearing by the parties. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held “…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”.
Evidence was put before me during the course of the hearing, much of which was not relevant to the complaints before me. I am required to set out ‘such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision’ per MacMenamin J in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63. In my decision, therefore, I have focused on the evidence which I deem to be relevant to these complaints.
No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear this complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.
Both parties confirmed at close of hearing that they had been provided with the opportunity to present their respective cases and had nothing further to add.
Background:
This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 09/04/2025. The Complainant alleges contravention by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statute in relation to his employment with the Respondent. The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 09/04/2026.
This is a complaint pursuant to section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. The WRC complaint form filed by the Complainant provides as follows: My employer has not provided me with a reasoned reply to my request for employment with more predictable and secure working conditions within one month of my request.
The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 26/11/2018. The Complainant works 39 hours per week for which he is paid €1,487.80 fortnightly.
The first hearing of this complaint took place initially on 09/10/2025 at which matters settled between the parties until such time as the Complainant advised that he was currently obtaining independent legal advice and requesting that his case remain open and active. Accordingly, the matter was sent forward for re-listing and set down for hearing on 09/04/2026.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00070708-001 Narrative from WRC complaint form. My Employer is forcing out of contract hours changes on me as part of a union pay day ( I am not a union member) that I have not agreed to and break my agreed, signed contract of employment. I am contracted 5 days in 7, 39 hours per week but they want me to work 11 days in a row with one week being a 7 days in 7 week outside of the contract terms. Employer is requiring extra hours available to them and less flexible time off for employees but believes this benefits my work life balance as the reason for the changes, however they cannot explain how it does just that they believe it does. Hours change only applies to newer "redacted" staff, not older ex civil servant [redacted] staff who work the same job for better pay, hours, terms and time off and get the same increases without hours changes in the same deal. Employer insists my role is collectively bargained however this is not in my contract or any documentation I have been given or agreed to. Employers internal grievance process took weeks and never actually dealt with any issues, never came to a resolution despite recommendations from their OH to do so, twice . Harassment and bullying by employer against their own internal policy to force me into complicit compliance with contract hours changes. I cannot perform these hours due to excess stress and excessive hours outside of agreed hours, Employer will only allow return to work under the new hours I have not agreed to. Employer keeps applying more stress and anxiety and demanding I comply with something I have never agreed to do or face discipline. Employer is unresponsive to reasonable requests to work as I am contracted to and demanding of employees, denying my employees rights and forcing union agreements on non union staff although my contract has no collective bargaining clause to allow this. Communication is impossible at this stage between employer and employee. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00070708-001 The Respondent submits the Complainant normal hours of work are 39 hours per week as set out in his contract of employment exhibited and as such he has already been provided with ‘predictable and secure working conditions.’ |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00070708-001 complaint seeking adjudication under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (“the 1994 Act”) The Complainant complains his employer has not provided him with a reasoned reply to his request for employment with more predictable and secure working conditions within one month of his request. The Relevant Law Section 6F of the 1994 Act “Transition to another form of employment (1) Subject to subsection (2), an employee who has been in the continuous service of an employer for not less than 6 months and who has completed his or her probationary period, if any, may request a form of employment with more predictable and secure working conditions where available and receive a reasoned written reply from his or her employer. (2) An employee may, once in any 12 month period, request a form of employment in accordance with subsection (1). (3) An employer shall provide the reasoned written reply referred to in subsection (1) to an employee within one month of the request by the employee. (4) An employer may provide an oral reply where a subsequent similar request is submitted by the same worker where the situation of the worker remains unchanged. (5) This section shall not apply to seafarers or sea fishermen.” The Relevant Facts Having carefully reviewed the Complainant’s submission it is apparent that the Complainant has misunderstood the applicability of the legislation he has impleaded to the substantive matter of his specific complaint. It was explained to the Complainant at hearing that the purpose of the section of the legislation impleaded is to protect employees who may be employed on zero hours contracts or employees who seek more secure working conditions by seeking to move from variable to fixed hours. The Complainant has not advanced any case which I could consider to be a breach of the impleaded legislation in circumstances where he already enjoys ‘predictable and secure working conditions’. In the circumstances of this matter, this particular complaint pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 is misconceived and accordingly I find it to be 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-00070708-001 For the reasons outlined above I decide this complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 20th April 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Key Words:
|