TED2622

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00050256 (CA-00061720-001)

BACKGROUND:

The employee appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 2 September2024 in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2012. 

A Labour Court hearing took place on 1 April, 22 May,19 ,20 August and 26 November 2025.

The following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

1. Background

The matter before the Court is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer decision (Adj-00050256, CA-00061729-001, dated 23 August 2024) in a complaint made by an employee against her former employer under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (“the Act”).

The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was not well founded.

A Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 29 August 2024. An application made by the employee to have the hearing held in private and the decision anonymised was granted by the Court, due to the sensitive nature of a linked appeal which included allegations of sexual harassment.

The employee had legal representation at a virtual hearing conducted on 1 April 2025 which was adjourned after the appeal opened due to technical difficulties. The employee represented herself as a lay litigant at a hybrid hearing conducted on 22 May 2025. That hearing was adjourned due to technical difficulties. The appeal and two linked appeals EDA2678 and EDA2680 were concluded over three days on 19 and 20 August 2025 and 26 November 2025.

Linked appeals lodged under the Employment Equality Act,1998, Payment of Wages Acts, 1991, and Protection of Employees (fixed-Term Work) act, 2003, were withdrawn by the Complainant after the hearing of 1 April 2024.

The parties are referred to in this Decision as they were at first instance. Hence, the employee is referred to as “the Complainant” and the former employer is referred to as “the Respondent”.

2. Summary of the Complainant’s Position

The Complainant submits that the Respondent contravened the Act as she was not notified in writing of three changes to her written terms of employment.

Firstly, the Complainant was allocated an additional post in relation to ‘pre-delivery notifications’ and required to undertake work from another department. The advert for her role made no mention of the requirement carry out additional duties. The Complainant was not informed in writing of this change.

Secondly, the Complainant’s contract of employment stated that she reported directly to the Financial Controller. Her supervisor was in fact a colleague who was the only person in the department familiar with her role. The Respondent changed her supervisor in contravention of her contract of employment. She was never informed in writing of this change.

Finally, the Respondent failed to notify her in writing when it withdrew an agreement in relation to flexible working hours. 

3. Summary of the Respondent’s Position

No changes were made to the Complainant terms and conditions of employment that fall within the scope of the legislation or at all.

The Complainant was employed as an Accounts Payable Specialist.  She was assigned additional tasks as provided for in her contract of employment and as specified in the job advert for the role. The Complainant incorrectly considers additional tasks to be an additional role.  There is no obligation under the Act that requires an employer to specify an employees’ supervisor. The Complainant had no agreement or entitlement to a flexible working arrangement under the terms of her contract of employment. 

4. The Relevant law

Section 5 of the Act provides as follows:-

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

(b) where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month, the time of the employee’s departure.

5. Deliberations

Section 5 of the 1994 Act applies where there is a change in the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer to an employee.

The Complainant contends that that she was not notified of three changes to her written statement of terms of employment.

It is accepted that the Complainant was issued with a written statement of the terms of her employment which she signed and accepted on 9 June 2023.

The Complainant’s written statement of terms of employment, clause 1.1, provided as follows:

‘1.1         You are employed as an Accounts Payable Specialist (12 month FTC)

However, due to the nature of the business, you may from time to time be required to perform other duties (on a permanent/temporary basis) which fall reasonably within our capabilities. 

You are required to report to the Financial Controller or any other person as may be designated’.

Under cross-examination, the Complainant accepted that the Respondent was entitled to assign her duties which fell within her capabilities as an ‘Accounts payable Specialist’. The Complainant further accepted that the job advert for her role expressly stated that her day-to-day responsibilities ‘involved but were not limited to’ the list of duties cited in the job advert.  In the circumstances, the Court finds that the duties assigned to the Complainant fell within the job description for her role as an ‘Accounts Payable Specialist’ and there was no change to the particulars of the Complainant’s written statement of terms of employment in relation to the duties assigned to her.

The term ‘supervisor’ is not encompassed by the Act, and an employee has no entitlement under the Act to be informed in writing about their supervisor.  Accordingly, the Court finds that the Complainant has not made out a case in relation to this aspect of her complaint.

The Complainant accepted that there was no agreement in place between the parties in relation to a flexible working arrangement. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Complainant has not made out a case in relation to this aspect of her complaint.

Having regard to the above evidence proffered, the Court finds that there was no requirement under the Act for the Respondent to notify the Complainant in writing of any changes to the matters raised by her in her complaint.

6. Finding

For the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the Respondent did not breach s 5 of 1994 Act.

Accordingly, the complaint under the Act is not well-founded.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
FC	______________________
21 January 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.