Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Przemyslaw  Wosik

Onsite Facilities Management Ltd Ofm

Representatives

Maureen Heffernan NFP HR Solutions Ireland Ltd

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-00076279-002

12/10/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00078281-001

05/12/2025

The Complainant was employed as a Chef with the Respondent since 4 April 2010 and remained in employment at the date of hearing.  The Complainant contended that his working pattern had been amended in September 2025 and that he was not notified in writing of that change in his terms of employment.  He further contended that from 2016 onwards his duties had significantly expanded beyond the role of a Chef and that he was de facto working at the level of a Catering Manager, without the Respondent having notified him in writing of the change to his terms of employment and without his remuneration arrangements being adjusted accordingly.

The Respondent denied the allegations and instead submitted that the Complainant’s working pattern had not been altered in 2025.  Additionally, the Respondent contended that while it was accepted that the role of the Chef had changed since the Complainant first took up employment, those changes were consistent with the role of a Chef and did not require any written notification under the Act.

CA- -00076279-002     Complaint pursuant to Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

In his complaint form, the Complainant submitted that he was not notified in writing of changes to his terms of employment.  He outlined that on 17 September 2025, his employer attempted to alter his established working pattern and pay by assigning him to another location for an 8-hour Sunday shift, instead of his regular 12-hour shift at his usual location. He submitted that this proposed change was made without his consent or written notice, contrary to Section 3(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 and Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. He submitted that the new roster added an extra 8-hour shift on Monday (normally his rest day) and reduced his Sunday hours and pay. This would have resulted in a significant loss of earnings and a change to his established work pattern (Thursday 8.00- 18.30, Friday 10.00- 18.30, Saturday & Sunday, 7:00–19:00).

The complainant submitted that he did not consent to these changes and raised a written objection, after which the company withdrew the revised roster. He submitted that although no deduction ultimately occurred, the attempt itself represented an unlawful modification of his hours and pay and further submitted that the incident caused significant stress and uncertainty regarding his job stability and contractual terms.

At hearing the Complainant gave evidence under affirmation that the Respondent had made changes to his roster in September 2025.  He stated that the changes were made without any consultation with him and without his knowledge.  He confirmed that he became aware of the change as it was listed on a piece of paper “hanging on a door” and that he was later advised of the change by a manager.  He stated that the changed roster was to take effect on 20 and 21 September 2025 and was to remain in place for a 2-week period.  He clarified that he became aware of the change in or around 17 September 2025.

The Complainant gave evidence that he objected to the change and that he brought his concerns to the attention of Ms. Leen.  The Complainant confirmed that thereafter he received his normal roster and he confirmed that the changed roster was never worked by him.

Under cross examination the Complainant confirmed that the roster that was assigned to him in September 2025 was covering for annual leave of a colleague in another location and he confirmed that after discussion on the matter with Ms. Leen he was not required to cover that roster.  He confirmed that no change occurred in relation to his working pattern.

Ms. Heffernan put it to the Complainant that there had not therefore been any change to his terms of employment that would warrant him being notified in writing.  The Complainant responded that if he had not reacted to the revised roster, he would have lost circa €140.  He did, however, confirm that “everything went back to normal” after his discussion with Ms. Leen.

CA- 00078281-001      Complaint pursuant to Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

In his complaint form, the Complainant submitted that he was not notified in writing of changes to his terms of employment.  He outlined that since 2016 he had been performing the duties of a Catering Manager, however he had never received an updated written statement of terms of employment reflecting this position.  He submitted that this role was assigned to him during a meeting in 2016, without consultation, without written confirmation, and without any amendment to his contract of employment and that the only employment contract he possessed was his contract from 2010.

The Complainant submitted that since that time his range of duties had been consistently and significantly expanded. He submitted that his role had expanded to include tasks typical of several separate positions, including:

• managing multiple centres simultaneously,

• operational work as the only chef,

• organising work and supervising staff,

• preparing and distributing meals,

• logistics between centres (including transport of meals),

• managerial, administrative and budgeting duties,

• performing maintenance and repair tasks.

The Complainant confirmed that this scope of work had never been confirmed to him in writing and had never been reflected in his remuneration, despite the fact that his actual duties had gone far beyond the framework defined in the 2010 contract. He submitted that throughout all those years he performed the tasks assigned in good faith, fearing that refusal could lead to disciplinary consequences or loss of employment. He submitted that all of the above circumstances point to a breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994–2014.

At hearing and under affirmation the Complainant gave evidence that from 201 onwards there were changes to his job description.  He stated that initially those changes related to matters relating to meal preparation and maintaining hygiene standards and providing advice to managers.  He stated that in 2012 he began placing orders for 4 different centres and that he was responsible for budget expenditure and other financial tasks.  He confirmed that such duties were never part of his original 2010 job description.

The Complainant outlined that in 2016 his role further expanded to what he believed to be a Catering Manager role, and he stated that in various corporate manuals he was described as the Catering Manager & Head Chef.  The Complainant drew attention to supplementary documentation which he had provided showing the use of that title by the Respondent.  He also noted that in correspondence between the Respondent and the HSE and in the welcome letter to new residents he was identified by the Respondent as the Manager and the main contact person for all matters relating to Catering.

The Complainant gave evidence that he provided clinics to residents in relation to dietary requirements and that he represented the Catering function at management meetings.  He drew attention to further supplementary documents which he had submitted that showed that on all rosters post 2017 and in the record of management meetings he was referred to as the Catering Manager.

He confirmed that he was responsible for organising the workflow in the kitchen, organising the team members and collating and checking all HACCP records and records relating to compliance with HIQA standards.

Under cross examination the Complainant confirmed that the greatest change occurred between 2021 and 2023 when he was required to work across two centres at the same time.  He stated that this was initially intended to be for a 3-week period but that it had lasted for 2 years.  He stated that this was a very stressful period as both areas were understaffed during that time. 

The Complainant confirmed that he did not submit a complaint at that time as he had raised the matter internally with senior management and he had expected the matter to be resolved internally.

The Complainant confirmed that a basic grade chef would be responsible for preparation of food but would not be required to deal with special dietary requirements.

In response to questions put by Ms. Heffernan the Complainant advised that he could not answer how many chefs were employed but he accepted Ms. Heffernan’s position that there were 6 chefs employed.  In relation to the job description submitted by the Respondent the Complainant advised that he had never seen it before and that it was not signed by him.  He stated that all documentation received by him at commencement of employment in 2010 had been signed by him. 

Ms. Heffernan put it to the Complainant that it was a normal part of a Chefs role to cook and to fill out compliance forms and the Complainant accepted that position.  She also put it to the Complainant that the Chefs in the other centres were also required to provide special diets, to order products and to oversee other chefs as part of their duties.  The Complainant responded that other chefs were not providing training, mentoring others, checking the accuracy of forms completed by others nor were they appointed by management as the first point of contact for residents.

Ms. Heffernan queried if the Complainant had applied for a new position through a recruitment process.  The Complainant confirmed that there had been no recruitment process but that he had not appointed himself to take on the additional duties.

CA- -00076279-002     Complaint pursuant to Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Respondent submitted that it put forward proposed changes to the Complainant’s working pattern, that the Complainant did not agree with the changes and so they were never implemented.  The Respondent noted that the Complainant had confirmed in his complaint form that there was no change to his terms and conditions and so proposed tht the within complaint was misconceived.

CA- 00078281-001      Complaint pursuant to Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Respondent submitted that the complainant commenced employment as a chef on 4 April 2010 and that there had been no change in position / title for the complainant which would warrant a change to the contract of employment or job description.

The Respondent submitted that in 2016, the complainant did take on further responsibilities in his role which included catering for four sites in total. It was the respondent’s position that as a Chef, this was part of the complainant’s role with the company.  The Respondent acknowledged that the Complainant carries out duties as a chef / catering manager as part of his role and that he would not be required to cook whilst performing ordering duties and had Mondays allocated to him to do these tasks.

The Respondent submitted that in 2020, at the request of the complainant, his role reverted to two sites as the complainant was unable to fulfil the responsibilities of four sites due to the lack of transport. The respondent facilitated this at the time and the complainant remained working solely with two sites since then.   The Respondent outlined its position that the other chefs carry out their ordering duties also similar to the complainant.

The respondent acknowledged that there are times where tasks vary within the role, however, it was the Respondent’s position that this is part of the normal agreement between parties of an employment contract.

The Respondent noted that Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 requires only that an employee be notified in writing of any change to the particulars of employment. It was the respondent’s position that the claims were misconceived and that if the complainant has a grievance in relation to his role or duties, then it should be raised under the company grievance policy.

I have given careful consideration to the submissions provided by the parties, together with all supporting documentation, and to the case law relied upon by the parties.  I have also taken account of the witness evidence given under oath/affirmation and have made my own enquiries in order to fulfil my obligation to fully investigate the matters before me.

CA- -00076279-002     Complaint pursuant to Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Complainant contended that he did not receive writing notice of changes to his terms and conditions of employment in September 2025 when changes were made to his roster. He submitted that those changes were made without prior notice to him and without consultation.  The Respondent contended that no change took place and therefore there was no requirement to issue a notice under the Act.

I note that Section 3 of the Act states: “3 - (1) An employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee's employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee's employment, that is to say –

(a) the full names of the employer and the employee,

(b) the address of the employer in the State or, where appropriate, the address of the principal place of the relevant business of the employer in the State or the registered office (within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1963),

(c) the place of work or, where there is no fixed or main place of work, a statement specifying that the employee is required or permitted to work at various places,

(d) the title of the job or nature of the work for which the employee is employed,

(e) the date of commencement of the employee's contract of employment,

(f) in the case of a temporary contract of employment, the expected duration thereof or, if the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the date on which the contract expires,

(g) the rate or method of calculation of the employee's remuneration,

(h) the length of the intervals between the times at which remuneration is paid, whether a week, a month or any other interval,

(i) any terms or conditions relating to hours of work (including overtime),

(j) any terms or conditions relating to paid leave (other than paid sick leave),

(k) any terms or conditions relating to —

(i) incapacity for work due to sickness or injury and paid sick leave, and

(ii) pensions and pension schemes,

(l) the period of notice which the employee is required to give and entitled to receive (whether by or under statute or under the terms of the employee's contract of employment) to determine the employee's contract of employment or, where this cannot be indicated when the information is given, the method for determining such periods of notice,

(m) a reference to any collective agreements which directly affect the terms and conditions of the employee's employment including, where the employer is not a party to such agreements, particulars of the bodies or institutions by whom they were made”.

Section 5 of the act states: “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) 1 month after 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”.

Based on the evidence of the parties, it is it was common case that there was no change to the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment as comprehended by Section 3 (1) (d) of the act.  The changed roster was never actually implemented and so it is clear that no change actually occurred.  In all of the circumstances outlined, I find that this complaint is not well founded. 

CA- 00078281-001      Complaint pursuant to Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Complainant contended that he did not receive writing notice of changes to his terms and conditions of employment when changes were made to his role on an ongoing basis since 2016.  He submitted that those changes amounted to him carrying out the role of Catering Manager rather than the role of Chef which was the role he was originally recruited to in 2010.  The Respondent contended that while changes had taken place, such changes were within the normal scope of what would be expected as part of any employment contract and that there was no change that would warrant a change to the contract of employment or the job description.

Section 3 of the Act states: “3 - (1) An employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee's employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee's employment, that is to say –

(a) the full names of the employer and the employee,

(b) the address of the employer in the State or, where appropriate, the address of the principal place of the relevant business of the employer in the State or the registered office (within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1963),

(c) the place of work or, where there is no fixed or main place of work, a statement specifying that the employee is required or permitted to work at various places,

(d) the title of the job or nature of the work for which the employee is employed,

(e) the date of commencement of the employee's contract of employment,

(f) in the case of a temporary contract of employment, the expected duration thereof or, if the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the date on which the contract expires,

(g) the rate or method of calculation of the employee's remuneration,

(h) the length of the intervals between the times at which remuneration is paid, whether a week, a month or any other interval,

(i) any terms or conditions relating to hours of work (including overtime),

(j) any terms or conditions relating to paid leave (other than paid sick leave),

(k) any terms or conditions relating to —

(i) incapacity for work due to sickness or injury and paid sick leave, and

(ii) pensions and pension schemes,

(l) the period of notice which the employee is required to give and entitled to receive (whether by or under statute or under the terms of the employee's contract of employment) to determine the employee's contract of employment or, where this cannot be indicated when the information is given, the method for determining such periods of notice,

(m) a reference to any collective agreements which directly affect the terms and conditions of the employee's employment including, where the employer is not a party to such agreements, particulars of the bodies or institutions by whom they were made”.

It is evident therefor that the Complainant is making out a case that the nature of his work as set out in Section 3(1)(d) of the Act has fundamentally changed and should have been reflected in a revised job description being issued by the Respondent in accordance with the following provisions of the Act:

“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) 1 month after 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”.

The key question which arises in this case is whether or not the duties of the Complainant fundamentally changed to the extent that those changes would have warrant the provision of a revised job description setting out the “nature of the work” now being undertaken by the Complainant. 

I found the Complaint to be credible in his evidence about the changes that had taken place over a period of time.  In particular, I noted his evidence that he was now responsible for budget management, monitoring of compliance standards, meetings with residents and management of rosters and workflows.  Although the Complainant was of the view that he had never seen the job description for a Chef, submitted by the Respondent, I noted that the role set out therein was consistent with that of a basic grade Chef.

In that job description I noted that the job description stated under the heading of Job Summary that “the Chef works under the guidance of the Head Chef to deliver culturally appropriate and varied menus….”  and I noted that no such reporting relationship existed.  It was clear from the uncontested evidence of the Complainant that he was the person under whose direction and guidance other Chefs worked and he was the person responsible for deciding on culturally appropriate and varied menus and for engaging with residents in relation to their dietary needs. 

The Job description also set out a number of key responsibilities for the Chef as follows:

·         Food Preparation & Cooking

·         Menu Execution

·         Kitchen Maintenance

·         Food Safety & Hygiene

·         Collaboration & Teamwork

·         Inventory & Supplies

·         Resident Interaction

Many of the basic duties of a Chef would also be applicable to a Head Chef or a person carrying a combine role of Chef & Manager.  It is therefore not indicative of the level of work being undertaken by the Complainant that he should have many of the duties set out in the job description as part of his role.  It is, however, evident, that rather than simply executing many of the tasks listed in the job description, the Complainant appears to be the person setting the standard to which the catering function must adhere.  In particular I noted that the job description required a Chef to “Follow recipies and menu plans provided by the Head Chef” and I noted that there is no person other than the Complainant carrying out the role of establishing menu plans.  In relation to items listed under Food Preparation & Cooking and under Kitchen Maintenance I noted that the Complainant is the person setting the standards and training and monitoring others for adherence to those standards.

There was clear and unambiguous evidence at hearing that the Complainant was the person who monitored compliance with the HACCP standards and who compiled all HACCP documentation and reviewed same for accuracy and addressed any inaccuracy.  This, it seems to me is not the role of the Chef, whose job is merely to adhere to the standards.

In terms of Collaboration & Team the job description is once again clear that the role of the Chef is to “work collaboratively with the Head Chef” and it is apparent that in the absence of that role it is the Complainant who acts in the leadership role.  Additionally, the job description requires the Chef to gather feedback from residents on meals and suggest improvements to the Head Chef and it is clear, that ultimately where a revised menu is required it is the Complainant who carries that decision making role.

What is omitted from that job description is also relevant to ascertaining the level of work being undertaken by the Complainant.  There is no mention in the Chef job description of the HIQA standards nor is there any mention of budgetary accountability.  While I accept that all chefs would be required to work within budget and to HIQA standards, accountability for managing the budget and for ensuring compliance with HIQA standards clearly falls outside the scope of the basic grade Chef’s role.

Taking all of the above into account I am satisfied that over time the Complainant’s role has expanded from that of Chef to a management role. Given the extent of the change in his role over time, I find that there were sufficient changes in the nature of the work undertaken by the Complainant to warrant a revised job description to be issued to him in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the act.  In that context I find that the Complainant’s complaint is well founded.

I noted the Complainant’s submissions in relation to the grading and the appropriate remuneration for his expanded role.  For the purpose of clarity I confirm that it does not fall within my remit under this Act to determine the level of that role nor to determine the level of remuneration appropriate to the role.  This will be a matter for the parties to discuss and agree subsequent to the decision in this matter.

CA- -00076279-002     Complaint pursuant to Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

I found that this complaint was not well founded and I decide accordingly.

CA- 00078281-001      Complaint pursuant to Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

I found that this complaint was well founded.

The Act sets out that an Adjudication Officer may

 “ 7 (2) (c ) require the employer to give or

cause to be given to the employee concerned a written statement containing such

particulars as may be specified….

(d) order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is

just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks

remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment ….”

Based on the above provisions I direct the Respondent to set out a revised job description

for the Complainant based on the expanded duties currently being undertaken by the

Complainant.  Such job description should also reflect the agreed changes to remuneration

arrangements arising from discussion between the parties as referenced above under

“Findings”.

In addition, I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the amount of €3684 as

compensation for breaches of the Act.  This amount is based on the Complainant’s salary of

€920 per week and equates to the statutory maximum provision contained in the Act.

Changes to terms of employment