ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062606
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Brendan Carroll | Irish Rail |
Representatives |
| Laura Devoy – Employee Relations Manager Sharon O’Rourke – Head of Employee Relations |
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-00076289-001 | 13/10/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/06/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 an employee can present a complaint or complaints of any perceived contravention by the Employer of any of the Acts (Statutes) contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015. Any such complaint (usually presented in the format of a workplace relations complaint form) is made to the Director General of the WRC. The said Director General can then refer the complaint to the Adjudication services. It is in these circumstances that this matter has come before me - an Adjudication Officer engaged by the Adjudication division of the WRC - to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or complaints made. Where appropriate, I hear the parties’ oral evidence, and I can give consideration to any supporting evidence provided by witnesses or relevant documentation.
In this instance, the Complainant has made a single complaint of the Employer having contravened Acts contained in Schedule 5 above referred to.
The Complainant has referred a matter for adjudication as provided for under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 in circumstances where a Contract of Service has commenced and where the said Employee employed by an Employer is entitled to have been provided (within two months of the commencement of the employee’s employment with the employer) with a Statement of certain Terms of the employment.
The said terms are specified in Section 3 of the 1994 Act and include items such as names, addresses and place of work. There should also be a job title and a description of the nature of the work. The start date and the nature/duration of the Contract should be included in the statement as well as the terms of the remuneration. This statement should be dated and signed with copies retained by both parties.
Issues/complaints raised under this Act are limited to a few specific areas and in this instance the Complainant has signalled his complaint to be:
My employer has applied a period of probation to my contract of employment in contravention of the Act
In addition to the foregoing, The Employment (Miscellaneous provisions) Act of 2018 (s.7) amended Section 3 of the Terms of Employment Act 1994 so as to oblige Employer’s to provide a new Employee with a written Statement of certain core details (names, employer’s address, nature of Contract, remuneration and hours) concerning the employment within 5 working days of the employment commencing. Failure to provide the core details after one month of continuous service can lead to an award of four weeks remuneration.
The Act also provides that an employer must notify the Employee of any changes in the particulars already detailed in the Statement of Terms. This is set out in Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 which puts the onus on an employer to notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of change in any of the particulars of the statement as provided by the Employer. The obligation does not extend to a change occurring in provision of statutes and instruments made under statute.
The complaint from herein issued on the 13th of October 2025 and I can consider any contravention of the Act which is alleged to have occurred within the six-month period prior to that date. The cognisable period is the 14th of April 2025 to the 13th of October 2025.
In circumstances where I consider the complaint to be well founded, I may require a Statement of Terms be provided. In addition, I am entitled to direct a payment of compensation up to the value of four weeks remuneration such that is just and equitable in all the circumstances.
Background:
This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that these proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing. In line with the coming into effect of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 on the 29th of July 2021, I can confirm that the witnesses herein were required to give their evidence on oath or affirmation. This was done in anticipation of the fact that there may have been a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to the complaint. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence. The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 13th of October 2025, and I can consider any contravention of the Act which is alleged to have occurred within the six-month period prior to that date. The cognisable period is the 14th of April 2025 to the 13th of October 2025. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant provided supporting documents on the 23rd of April 2026. The Complainant’s complaint form raises the following issue: I’ve been working for Irish rail coming up to 5 years now not made permanent, no sign of being made permanent either no I’m being told because I've type 2 diabetes it may affect me being made permanent at all. Not allowed into pension schemes etc unless permanent. Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant. 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 as prescribed by Statute. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent entity was represented by a number of witnesses including the Head of Employee Relations and a Manager in Employee Relations. The Respondent provided me with a comprehensive written submission received by the WRC on the 9th of June 2026. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. All evidence was heard following an Affirmation/Oath. The Respondent witnesses were questioned by the Complainant. The Respondent rejects that there has been a breach of the legislation as alleged in the complaint form or any other employment Statute. 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 as prescribed by Statute. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully considered the matters which came before me. In the first instance it must be noted that the Complainant had and has no complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. As previously noted, the Complainant had made a complaint that My employer has applied a period of probation to my contract of employment in contravention of the Act Matters pertaining to probation periods are set out as follows: Maximum Duration of probationary period 6D (1) Subject to this section, where an employee has entered into a contract of employment with an employer which provides for a probationary period, such period shall not exceed 6 months. (2) The probationary period if a public servant shall not exceed 12 months (3) The probationary period referred to in subsection (1) may, on an exceptional basis, be longer where such period- a) does not exceed 12months, and b) would be in the interest of the employee 4) Subject to subsections (3) and (5) where, on the commencement date an employee (other than a public servant) is subject to a probationary period which exceeds 6 months and the employee has completed at least 6 months of his or her probationary period, the probationary period shall expire on the earlier of – (a) the date on which the probationary period was due to expire, or (b) the 1st day of February 2023Provide reasons for redress and award made It became clear to me in the course of evidence, that the Complainant had no issue concerning a probation period he might or might not have served. In fact, the Complainant came before me and presented an argument under an altogether different piece of legislation. The Complainant was engaged on a fixed purpose Contract in 2020. The Complainant asserts that he should have been offered a permanent Contract. The basis for his argument is to be found in Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 states the following: 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. The Respondent recognised that the Complainant’s complaint was not under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 and addressed the issue raised and asserts that the four-year threshold applies only to successive fixed-term contracts. Where an employer is issuing a fixed-term contract for the first time, there is no limit on the length of that contract once the intended purpose of the contract remains valid. Mr. Carroll was not employed on successive fixed-purpose contracts. He was employed on a one single fixed-purpose contract. Other issues raised in the course of the hearing would more properly be brought before the WRC by way of an industrial dispute seeking recommendation and I make no comment in respect of those matters which need to be brought to the attention of the Employer by the process of raising a Grievance before ever coming before the WRC. I am satisfied that the Respondent is correct in its assertion concerning the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 and in any event I am only bound to make a decision under the piece of legislation which has been brought before me on this complaint form.
|
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. CA-00076289-001 - The complaint herein is misconceived and therefore not well founded and fails.
|
Dated: 31st August 2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|