MN/26/7
DECISION NO. MND264 |
SECTION 44, WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
PARTIES:
OCS ONE COMPLETE SOLUTION LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IBEC)
AND
CAROLINE BARNES
(REPRESENTED BY MR DAVE JOSEPH FAHERTY BL INSTRUCTED BY O'HANRAHAN LALLY D'ALTON SOLICITORS)
DIVISION:
| Chairman: | Mr Haugh |
| Employer Member: | Mr Marie |
| Worker Member: | Mr Bell |
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00042615 (CA00053114-002)
BACKGROUND:
The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 9 August 2024 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 14 April 2026.
The following is the Decision of the Court:
DECISION:
Background to the Appeal This is an appeal by Ms Caroline Barnes (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00042615/CA-00053114-002, dated 10 July 2024) under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 9 August 2024. The appeal was heard in Dublin on 14 April 2026 along with the Complainant’s appeal under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (the decision in which bears reference number UD/24/108).
Brief Overview of Facts The Complainant commenced employment with OCS One Complete Solution Limited (‘the Respondent’) from 7 September 2021 on a permanent part-time contract. She worked 20 hours per week, 4 hours per day, Monday to Friday. Her rate of pay was €13.00 per hour.
On Sunday 25 September 2022, the Complainant received an instruction to attend at a client site which was not her usual place of work to provide cover there for two weeks, commencing on Monday 26 September. The Complainant complied with the instruction given to her. A Manager from the Respondent attended at the site on Wednesday 28 September and took issue with aspects of the Complainant’s work. The Manager gave an instruction to the Complainant which the Complainant refused to comply with. The Manager asked her to leave the site and not to return there.
The Complainant construed the Manager’s instruction to leave the site as a dismissal. She contacted her solicitor while travelling home that afternoon and arranged for a consultation the following morning. She also contacted her usual Line Manager and the Respondent’s Human Resources department. Human Resources undertook to look into the issues raised by the Complainant. Having done so, a HR executive sent an email early on 29 September to the Complainant advising her that her employment had not been terminated. The Complainant submitted her complaint form to the Workplace Relations Commission on 5 October 2022. She had not commenced in alternative employment as of the date of the within hearing.
Discussion and Decision The Court has already decided in UD/14/108 that the Complainant had not been dismissed as alleged by the Respondent on 28 September 2022 or at all. It follows, therefore, that no question of an entitlement to statutory notice or pay in lieu arises in this case. The Complainant’s appeal under the Act accordingly fails and the decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.
The Court so decides.
 | Signed on behalf of the Labour Court |
| |
| Alan Haugh |
| FC | ______________________ |
| 15th April 2026 | Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.