Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ellada  Savcenko

IAA

Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms A Sundquist HR & Mr B Higgins

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-00071749-001

21/05/2025

The issues in contention concern a complaint of Penalisation under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act,1994 by a Finance Officer against an Airport Authority. The Employment began on the 13th February 2023 and ended, by Dismissal, on the 22nd May 2025.

The Rate of Pay was stated by the Complainant to have been €63,342 per annum for a 36-hour week.

The Complainant was self-represented but supported by a number of copy e-mails and a brief statement. She maintained that she had been Dismissed by the Authority on the 22nd May 2025.  No proper procedures were followed by the Respondent employer. She was not afforded any Representation. The details of the alleged offences were never provided to her. She outlined the Sections of the Employer Disciplinary Code and Dignity at Work Policy that she alleged the Respondent Employer was clearly in breach of. The entire process had been a blatant example of Pre Judged findings and a gross case of Penalisation as set out in the Terms of Employment (Information) Act,1994.

The Respondent was represented by HR Manger, Ms Sundquist supported by colleague Mr Higgins. A detailed written submission was provided to the Hearing.

In essence the Respondent case was that the employer was fully in compliance with the Terms of Employment (Information) Act,1994. A detailed statement was exhibited to demonstrate, on a Section by Section basis the compliance of the Respondent.

It was acknowledged that the Complainant may feel that she has issues outside of the 1994 Information Act ,specifically in relation to her Dismissal, but these were not before the Hearing. The Respondent came to the Hearing to answer the Information Act, 1994 complaint only.

The case has no proper foundation and must be deemed legally, Not Well Founded.

3:1        Legal Basis -Terms of Employment (Information) Act,1994 and as amended by The Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018.

Section 6C of the 1994 Act is central to this complaint.

Protection against penalisation

6C.— (1) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation of an employee for—

(a) invoking any right conferred on him or her by this Act,

(b) having in good faith opposed by lawful means an act that is unlawful under this Act,

(c) giving evidence in any proceedings under this Act, or

(d) giving notice of his or her intention to do any of the things referred to in the preceding paragraphs.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the making of a complaint that is a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

(3) In proceedings under Part 4 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint that subsection (1) has been contravened, it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the employee concerned has acted reasonably and in good faith in forming the opinion and making the communication concerned.

(4) If a penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (1), constitutes a dismissal of the employee within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015, relief may not be granted to the employee in respect of that penalisation both under this Act and under those Acts.

(5) In this section "penalisation" means any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects an employee to his or her detriment with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—

(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015), or the threat of suspension, lay-off or dismissal,

(b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion,

(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours,

(d) imposition or the administering of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty), and

(e) coercion or intimidation.

The key issue here is that a Complainant has to invoke a complaint of a Breach of the Act in terms of Employment Information against a Respondent Employer

The Act refers to an Employee “Invoking a Right” against an employer. However, Legal issue aside, a Compliant has to be based on Evidence submitted and the factual background of the Case. This will be considered below.

3:2         Consideration of the Evidence presented.

The Complainant gave a heartfelt Oral Testimony regarding the ending of her employment, her Dismissal, by the Respondent Authority. The Adjudication Officer queried her choice of Legislation in bringing her complaint. She had the qualifying employment service to qualify for a range of other more, it would have appeared, specific Termination of Employment legislation.

The Complainant was non-specific in her reply. It appeared that there may have been a lack of appreciation of details of Irish Employment Legislation. A relevant legal point was that the Complaint had been lodged on the 21st May 2025, prior to the dismissal on the 22nd May 2025. A need to supplement the initial Information complaint with a further Dismissal complaint may not have been fully appreciated.

The Respondent Employer is a major Semi State Organisation with an extensive professional HR Department.

The full terms of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act,1994 were complied with. Evidence under sworn Oath/Affirmation and extensive copy documentation supported this position. In addition, on a technical basis, the Complaint never ,while in employment “Invoked a Right” under the Act as regards any alleged information failures.

3:3       Adjudication Summary/Conclusion

The Terms of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act,1994 were fully complied with. No evidence was presented on any specific penalisation as defined in the Act and related to Complaints/Invoking Rights under the Act.

The Complainant case has to be deemed to be Legally Not Properly Founded and has to fail

Terms of Employment Information Act,1994. Penalisation.