Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mayra Kadija  Palermo Maziero Fiori

Moyvalley Meats

Representatives

Self-represented

Sean Mc Namara, General Manager

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-00076356-001

14/10/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and two witnesses for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation.  Cross examination was facilitated.  The hearing took place with the assistance of an interpreter provided by the WRC.

At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment 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 that a

“…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…”.

The complainant suggested that she was seeking to ascertain her position regarding employment with the respondent. She submitted that she was pregnant but that she submitted a medical cert noting that she could not work in an environment where there was contact with blood or strong odours and that she was nauseous and was unable to work in such an environment.

Following medical advice, she submitted two letters requesting a transfer to another department. The company asked her to apply for social support, which she could not do due to insufficient residence and contribution time. Since then, she has not been allowed to return to work, has received no salary, and has had no response.

The complainant submitted that at no point has the company given her any formal feedback or shown concern to resolve the situation, despite repeated attempts to contact them.

Oral evidence:

The complainant stated that in July 2026 she informed the respondent that she was pregnant.  She stated that she was subject to nausea and vomiting and submitted a medical certificate to that effect.  She sought a transfer.  She stated that she was provided with a letter from the company saying that there was no other sector available that she could work in.  She stated that she made an application for social assistance, but it was rejected.  She stated that she contacted the company again sending in an accompany medical certificate seeking reallocation to another sector of the factory.

The complainant stated that she sent a letter to the factory regarding the bills that she had to pay, seeking an alternative location in which to work.  She then stated that they day did not contact her in response.

Cross examination was not availed of.

The responded stated that it was informed at the start of July 2025 that the complainant was pregnant, that she was looking for a transfer and that she was hoping to solve this matter in a professional manner ensuring her rights.  The complainant was put on Health & Safety Leave while the respondent investigated the complainant’s request. It was submitted that the company had a specific person in its employment who was of the same nationality as the complainant. He worked in the human resource section specifically dealing with issues surrounding pregnancy of employees and employment rights.

The respondent submitted that as with all employees who informed their employer that they are pregnant, the respondent carried out a Health & Safety assessment and considered the medical certification submitted by the complainant.  Arising from this, she was informed on 27 July 2025 that no position was available for her. The respondent confirmed that the complainant was out on medically certified sick leave for the month of August. They sought additional information from the complainant by way of an additional medical certificate.

The respondent submitted that the additional medical certificate confirmed that the complainant’s medical condition had not changed.  As there was no place available for the complainant to be transferred to that would comply with the Health & Safety assessment and the requirements of the medical certificate and the complainant was informed accordingly.

By way of follow-up the respondent wrote to the complainant asking her to keep them up to date as to her medical condition and if there were any changes she should get in touch with them and let them know.

Oral testimony:

The general manager confirmed that the complainant was out on maternity leave at present and when that leave concluded there was a position available for her to return to.

The witness submitted that there was no delay in responding to any correspondence or request for clarification received from the complainant and referred to the timeline provided in the documentation submitted.

Cross examination was not availed of.

The complainant submitted that she sought clarification from her employer as to the position with her employment but that they did not respond within one month as required by the Act.

Section 6F of the Act states as follows:

6F.— (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.

The complainant sought information from the respondent in relation to her position in writing. The respondent replied in writing within a month to those written requests clarifying its position relating to the complainant's employment in the meat processing plant. It confirmed to her that arising from a Health & Safety assessment combined with the requirements set out in her medical certificate it did not have a position for her. As the complaintants requests were replied to within four weeks of having been received, I am not satisfied that breach of the act has been established by the complainant.

Having regard to section 6F of the act, I find that there has been no breach of the Act in relation to responding to the complainants written queries. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded.

Terms of Employment Information – reasoned reply to a request for employment with more predictable and secure working conditions within one month of my request – Act complied with – complaint not well founded.