Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Claire  Sweeney

An Post

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

Act

Complaint 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-00071980-001

29/05/2025

The Complainant commenced Employment on 30th June 2003. At all relevant times the Complainant role was described as Administration Operative. The Complainant remains was a permanent, full-time employee of the Respondent.

On, the Complainant referred the present complaints to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent breached her terms and conditions of employment by refusing to recognise her seniority following a proposed transfer of undertakings. By response, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant service will be maintained following the transfer, and that the issue of seniority will only become relevant for the purposes of matters such as internal promotions. In this regard, they submitted that the present complaint is not actionable under the impleaded legislation.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 28th November 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued submissions in advance of the hearing. Given the nature of the present complaint, no witness evidence was called by either party.

By submission, the Complainant stated that the Respondent intends to close the delivery service unit in which she is based. In such circumstances, the Complainant has the option of reverting to a previous grade, should she wish to do so. When the Complainant expressed her interest in such a move, she was informed that the same would impact on her seniority within the organisation, with the same running from the date of commencement of the role, as opposed to her commencement date with the organisation. By submission, the Complainant stated that she is being punished by the Respondent in losing her seniority with the organisation, and that the Respondent is in breach of the contract of employment in this regard.

By response, the Respondent stated that the allegations raised by the Complainant are not actionable under the impleaded legislation. Nonetheless, they undertook to engage with the Complainant should she wish to raise an internal grievance in relation to the issues described.

By submission, the Complainant has stated that she will lose her seniority in the role following a proposed transfer of her duties. By response, while the Respondent accepted that seniority for these purposes is based on time spent in the particular role as opposed to within the organisation itself, they submitted that the Complainant’s duration of employment will be recognised as running from the date of her commencement with the organisation.

In this regard, Section 3 of the Act provides that an employee should be provided with a statement if terms of employment at or near the commencement of their employment. Section 5 of the Act then provides that an employee should be informed in writing of any amendment to these terms within four weeks of the same. Section 3(1)(i) of the Act lists, “the date of commencement of the employee’s contract of employment” as one such term that should be reduced to writing in this manner. Regarding the present complaint, it is common case that the Complainant’s date of commencement is to remain the same, with the issue of seniority being affected by the proposed transfer. In circumstances whereby this term is not listed in Section 3, I find that the present complaint is not well-founded.

I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

Seniority, Duration of employment, Commencement date