ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058356
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Gerard Murphy | Rainbow Community Services |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
| Hugh Hegarty Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00070866-001 | 16/04/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 3 of the Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006 | CA-00071344-001 | 06/05/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00073445-001 | 15/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/12/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021, the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, that testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties. Full cross examination of witnesses was allowed.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearings on 4 December 2025, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 24 April 2023. His employment ended on 27 August 2025. Four complaint forms were lodged with the WRC (the first on 16 April 2025, the second on 6 May 2025, the third on 15 July 2025 at 10.31 and the fourth on 15 July 2025 at 12.40). |
CA- 00070866-001 Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In his complaint form, the Complainant stated that after being out from work, following a disclosure having been made against him, he was unable to attend a planned meeting with a director. He was informed that because he had not attended the meeting he would not be provided with work and he would not be paid for that week [which he did not work]. He submits that as he is on a full-term contract regardless of hours, he should have received 39 hours pay as per his contract of employment. He submits that he is owed €750. The Complainant gave evidence on Affirmation at the hearing. The Complainant stated that he was unable to attend a scheduled meeting with one of the Directors and as a result €750 was withheld from him. In response to questions put to him in cross examination, the Complainant stated that he had not attended work the week after the scheduled meeting, because there was no work scheduled for him. He did not work any hours that week. When asked if he had provided sick certs relating to this week, he replied that he could not remember. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Ms Grace Madzikanda (Director of Services) gave evidence on Affirmation on behalf of the Respondent. Ms Madzikanda stated that it is the organisation’s policy that if a member of staff is out, for any reason, they must do a Return-to-Work Meeting. In this instant case the Complainant did not attend a planned meeting, although he would have been paid eight hours pay purely for attending. As he did not attend this meeting, he was not scheduled for work the following week and he did not attend work the following week. In response to questions put to her in cross examination, the witness stated the only time the Complainant had not been paid was when he had stated that he was unable to work. He had already exhausted his sick leave. He was not paid because he was not available to work and not entitled to sick leave pay. Ms Madzikanda stated that if a member of staff does not attend a Return-to-Work Meeting on returning from leave they are not paid basic salary. The Respondent’s representative stated that if an employee fails to attend a Return-to-Work meeting they are not paid. He also pointed out that the complainant was an hourly paid employee, not a salaried employee. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant did not attend a Return-to-Work meeting nor did he provide an explanation to clarify why he did not attend this meeting. Because of his non-attendance he was not scheduled to work the following week. It was the Complainant’s decision not to attend this meeting. As he did not work the week the Respondent did not pay him. I find this does not amount to a breach of the Act. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is not well founded. |
CA-00071344-001 Complaint under schedule 3 of the Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that on his return to work, having been suspended from work due to an investigation taking place into his conduct, he was penalised by being isolated. He was sent to a location where he was told to make beds and carry out other mundane tasks. He was not kept informed about what was happening.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Ms Madzikanda gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. Ms Madzikanda stated that a risk assessment had been carried out and for that reason the Complainant was moved to a location where he was to carry out tasks, tasks which other social workers would do from time to time. He was also asked to work on some files. The 2006 Act relates to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses and to provide for related matters. The case put forward by the complainant is not related to a transfer of undertakings. The complaint is misconceived.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
The 2006 Act relates to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses and to provide for related matters. The case put forward by the complainant is not related to a transfer of undertakings. The complaint is misconceived. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is not well founded. |
CA-00073445-001 Complaint under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act,1994.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In his complaint form, the Complainant submits that he was contracted by the Respondent to work 39 hours per week, including overnight shifts which he performed regularly up to early 2025. Following an allegation made against him, which was later closed with no findings against him, he was removed from overnight duties and reassigned to an off-site location, where he was instructed to complete administrative tasks unrelated to his original role. The Complainant submits that this change has resulted in a significant alteration to his duties, working environment and pay (he had previously earned €100 per shift, averaging €800 per month. Despite this, he did not receive any amendment to his contract, no updated statement of terms and no clear explanation of his new duties or reporting structure. The Complainant believes he is entitled to receive written notification of any change to the terms and conditions of his employment. In his direct evidence at the hearing, the Complainant stated that he was moved to another location without being given any written information about this change. This new location was not directly linked to the organisation. The Complainant also stated that he had not been given payslips on, 7, 14 and 21 August 2025, as he should have been. In response to questions put to him in cross examination, the Complainant accepted that he had received the payslips referred to above, but only after he had told the Director of Services that it was against the law for him not to get them. The Complainant stated that the change made to his contracted working arrangements was that he had been removed from child facing duties and from night duties, as had been the custom and practice for the previous two years. Regarding his place of work, when it was put to him that Schedule 1 of his contract allowed for him to be moved to another location, the Complainant stated that the place he was moved to is not a location mentioned in the schedule; it only covers two places. Where he was moved to was an office, there were no other colleagues working there, he was on his own upstairs. He was moved to this location without his consent. He believed he was going to go back to his normal duties. He was asked to do things for which he was not qualified, such as painting and decorating. He refused to fill in certain records as he stated he was not entitled to do so. Not going back to his normal duties caused him much stress. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
In her direct evidence, Ms Madzikanda stated that the work the Complainant had been asked to complete at the period in question fell within the scope of a social worker’s duties. Other colleagues had been given similar work to do. She stated that she had asked the Complainant to paint a fireplace and put an Ikea bed together, but this was not an instruction. When he refused to do this work, he was given other work to do instead. Ms Madzikanda stated that staff are moved around, depending on teams but movement is continuous and ongoing. Regarding payslips, the witness stated that the production of payslips is automated. If an employee does not get one, they email her and that is what happened in this instance. In response to questions put to her in cross examination, Ms Madzikanda stated that because the complainant’s employment ended with immediate effect, at his request, and he had not worked in the three weeks leading to his termination, payslips were not generated; if they had been, they would have shown zero pay. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 5 of the Act states- Notification of changes. 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) the day on which the change takes effect, or… The Complainant was moved to a location where he had not worked before, which was not explicitly mentioned in his contract of employment, without proper notification in writing. He was left working on his own on tasks that could be construed as outside his contractual duties and unlike tasks he had carried out before. It is accepted by the Respondent that the Complainant was not issued with his last three payslips when he should have been. Notwithstanding the fact that these payslips would have shown a zero amount of pay they are important documents, particularly at the end of employment. They should have been issued to the Complainant at the correct time. I find the Act was breached. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is well founded and I award compensation of two weeks remuneration, that is €1,500, to the Complainant. |
Dated: 12-02-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Contract of employment, hours of work. |