ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057034
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Evanthia Kavidopoulou | Sorcha Homes Limited t/a Horizon House |
Representatives | N/A | Peter Ryan, RA Consulting |
Complaints:
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-00069349-001 | 17/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00069349-002 | 17/02/2025 |
Dates of Adjudication Hearing: 26/02/2025; 30/04/2025; and 13/03/2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
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.
This matter was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designates the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Ms. Kavidopoulou (the “Complainant”) attended the Hearing. Mr. Dermot Harkin, the Complainant’s former Manager, attended on the first and second days of the Hearing. He did not give evidence. Sorcha Homes t/a Horizon House (the “Respondent”) was also in attendance. Mr. Conor Marjoram, the Respondent’s proprietor and Director was in attendance and gave evidence. The Respondent was represented by Mr. Peter Ryan of RA Consulting.
The Hearing was held in public. Evidence was provided on oath or affirmation. The legal perils of committing perjury were explained.
Correct Respondent Name:
The Respondent’s correct name is noted above, as agreed at the Hearing.
Joint Adjudication Files – ADJ-00055340 and ADJ-00057034:
The Complainant has a second linked adjudication file before the WRC, namely ADJ-00055340, encompassing the complaints that she filed on 15 November 2024.
On the Complainant’s application on 26 February 2025 the complaints under ADJ-00055340 were heard alongside the complaints under this adjudication file, ADJ-00057034.
Two decisions have been issued to address all live complaints raised by the Complainant under both adjudication files. As a result, there is some overlap concerning the content of both decisions.
Additional Complaint:
At the outset of the Hearing, I noted that the Complainant had outlined two complaints in her complaint form dated 17 February 2025, namely: one complaint concerning an allegation that the Complainant was not notified in writing of a change to her terms of employment; and one complaint concerning an allegation that the Complainant was not provided with a statement of her core terms in writing.
I referred to County Louth Vocational Educational Committee v. The Equality Tribunal [2016] IESC 40, which upheld the flexibility of WRC procedures. I also referred to the judgment of Charleton J. in Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology v. Employment Appeals Tribunal [2007] IEHC 210, which provides that there should not be excessive formalism in civil procedure.
I sought submissions from the Parties, who did not object to the addition of the second complaint. I have ruled that this second complaint can be added to this adjudication file. This second complaint has been allocated the reference number CA-00069349-002.
Documentation Provided by the Complainant:
As outlined below, the Complainant was provided with further time in which to provide copies of the original documentation and communications referred to in her submissions. She did not do so.
The Complainant provided two statements from former colleagues. These colleagues did not provide any oral evidence. In the circumstances, it was explained to the Complainant that the statements could not be accepted as evidence, as they amounted to hearsay.
Hearing Dates:
The Hearing commenced on 26 February 2025. At the outset of the Hearing, it was noted that the Complainant had two Adjudication files before the WRC. The Complainant requested that all matters be heard together. The Respondent submitted that it was not on notice of the additional complaints and sought an adjournment so that all matters could be heard together at a later date. The Complainant raised no objection. In the circumstances, the Hearing was adjourned to ensure that the Respondent was fully on notice of all matters and to allow all matters to be heard together on a later date. The Complainant was also asked to provide full copies of the original documentation and communications referred to in her submissions.
The Hearing resumed on 30 April 2025. At the end of the Complainant’s case, the Respondent’s representative indicated that he was unavailable for the rest of the afternoon and sought an adjournment. The Complainant did not raise any objection. In the circumstances, the matter was adjourned. The matter was subsequently listed for Hearing, however on the Complainant’s application, the Hearing was postponed. The matter resumed and concluded on 13 March 2026, when the Respondent’s case, inter alia, was heard.
Background:
The Complainant worked as a Social Care Worker for the Respondent from 1 November 2023 until October / November 2024. She was promoted to Team Leader in June 2024. The Complainant outlined that she worked a variable number of hours per week. Following her promotion, the Complainant was initially paid €18 (gross) per hour and a lower rate of €13.70 (gross) per hour when she was rostered to sleep on the work premises. The Complainant outlined that this rate was subsequently unlawfully reduced by the Respondent to €15 (gross) per hour and a lower rate of €12.70 (gross) per hour when she was rostered to sleep on the work premises. The Respondent denies the allegations in full. The Respondent further submits that the Complainant was overpaid in error and that this error was subsequently corrected.
The Complainant further alleges that following her promotion to Team Leader, she was not notified in writing of a change to her terms of employment. The Complainant further alleges that she was not provided with a statement of her core terms in writing. The Respondent also denies these allegations in full.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant provided detailed written and oral submissions.
The Complainant submitted, inter alia, that she wants her “voice to be heard”. She submitted that she was promoted in June 2024 and that she received no new contract, despite her requests. She further stated that she was paid €18 (gross) per hour for two pay cycles. She was informed, by email on 29 August 2024 that she was on the incorrect pay rate and that the rate would be reduced. She stated that on 17 September 2024 and after a long shift, the Director arranged to meet with her and told her that she was being dismissed. She said that she has been met with “delay, deflection or silence” and did not get a straightforward answer.
The Complainant – Oral Evidence:
The Complainant outlined that she commenced her Social Care Worker role in October 2023 and passed her probation period without issue. Her tasks involved “mainly” housekeeping; preparing lunches and dinners; and caring for children aged 14 to 17 years old. The Complainant outlined that the role of Team Leader was advertised by way of a “WhatsApp” message dated 27 May 2024. She stated that she successfully applied and that she was promoted to the position of Team Leader in June 2024. She outlined that her new role had more to do with legislation, in that she was required to report more to the Manager; delegate tasks to the team; and lead the team. The Complainant outlined that there were approximately ten people in the team.
The Complainant outlined that, despite numerous requests, she did not receive a new and / or updated contract following her promotion in June 2024. She referred to her payslips dated June and July 2024 and submitted that, following promotion, she received €18 (gross) per hour. She stated that this was in line with what other Team Leaders received.
The Complainant stated that she went on annual leave from 30 August 2024 to 9 September 2024. She stated that on 29 August 2024, she received an email from Mr. Marjoram in which she was told that her pay would be reduced following an incorrect overpayment over the past three months. The Complainant outlined that she made multiple calls to the Respondent and that she emailed the Respondent but received no response. She said that her rate of pay was reduced. She said that a meeting was subsequently arranged with Mr. Marjoram on 17 September 2024, following a long shift. She said that this meeting was arranged “under false pretences” and that she was dismissed on the spot. She stated that she did not have the chance to say goodbye to the children in her care.
The Complainant made allegations of negligence; bullying; and unprofessional behaviour against the Respondent. She also stated that her signature on her contract of employment was forged.
Cross-Examination:
The Complainant confirmed that she received her core employment terms on 20 October 2022 which she acknowledged on 21 October 2022. However, she took issue with the signature on that contract. The Complainant outlined that she is taking issue with not being provided with a contract of employment for her role as a Team Leader. The Complainant outlined that she had made these requests to her Manager, Mr. Harkin. The Complainant did not know how many times exactly she had verbally requested a contract for her new position but that it was more than five times. The Complainant stated that she believes that she was entitled to a new contract for her role as Team Leader.
The Complainant confirmed that she believed that a raise of 31% in her pay, after seven months in the employ of the Respondent, was justified. She stated that this was the Team Leader rate. She stated that it was below the 2024 average.
The Complainant stated that her Manager, Mr. Harkin, had told her that the new hourly rate was €18 (gross) per hour when she was promoted on 4 June 2024.
The Complainant was asked why she should be paid more than the other Team Leader in the company, who was in receipt of €16 per hour, when the Complainant had no experience. The Complainant stated that Mr. Harkin, her Manager, told her that she would be paid €18 (gross) per hour.
The Complainant referred to a job posting for the Team Leader role, which she said was shown to her by Mr. Harkin, her Manager. She stated that he told her that he could not give her a copy. She stated that the job posting outlined her tasks, responsibilities and pay as Team Leader. The Complainant then stated that her pay rate as Team Leader was not referred to in this job posting.
The Complainant then confirmed that the only person who told her that her hourly rate would be €18 (gross) per hour was Mr. Harkin. She stated that this rate was not anywhere in writing.
The Complainant was referred to a reference letter, referring to her pay, that she received from the Respondent in July 2024 which was post-dated 30 August 2024. She said that she required it for a house search. She said that it was post-dated so that she could use it from that date. She said that she wanted “up-to-date” documents.
The Complainant stated that she has been honest and truthful. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent provided detailed written and oral submissions. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s pay could not have been reduced if it was not properly payable. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s contract of employment refers to the fact that any pay rise must be signed off and that this had not been done here. The Complainant further submitted that Mr. Harkin, the Complainant’s Manager and friend, did not attend as a witness. Finally, the Respondent submitted that it had not sought any repayment of the overpayment. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant received a contract of employment on appointment which she signed. The Respondent submitted that there is no legal entitlement to a new contract of employment on promotion. Finally, the Respondent raised a number of credibility issues regarding the Complainant’s evidence.
Ms. Gwen Prizeman – Oral Evidence: Ms. Prizeman outlined that she was the Centre Manager from December 2012 until March 2024. She stated that from March 2024 until June 2024, she worked in a separate centre to the children’s residential home. She then took a break for a few months until she took up the Area Manager role in September 2024. Ms. Prizeman stated that she did not recall providing the reference letter to the Complaint dated August 2024. She stated that the Respondent’s headed paper had been used, however, the language in the letter was not what she would use. She stated that she would also not refer to the Respondent as “Sorcha Homes”. Finally, she said that her new title was not confirmed until September 2024 and so she would not have used that title in any letter sign-off before that date. Cross-Examination: Ms. Prizeman confirmed that during her break, she still attended the Respondent’s premises on occasion. She stated again that she did not recall writing the reference letter for the Complainant. She stated that she could not have handed the letter to the Complainant in July 2024 as she was not present in July 2024. She stated that she did not recall handing the letter to the Complainant. Mr. Conor Marjoram – Oral Evidence: Mr. Marjoram outlined that he is the sole proprietor and Director of the Respondent since August 2006. Mr. Marjoram outlined that he visited the home about once per month, when he saw the Complainant. He stated that he also saw her at training events. Mr. Marjoram stated that the Team Leaders had five years’ experience, including four years of post-qualification experience. He stated that a BA in Social Care is the preferred degree for a Team Leader. He stated that a psychology degree is an acceptable degree but that it is not the preferred degree. Mr. Marjoram stated that the Complainant had a psychology degree. He said that on promotion to Team Leader, due to the Complainant’s experience levels, she would have received €15 (gross) per hour, which was one Euro less per hour than the more experienced Team Leader. He stated that the rate of €15 per hour applied from the date of promotion. Mr. Marjoram outlined that he carried out a payroll inspection and saw that the Complainant’s hourly rate was €18 (gross) per hour, which had not been approved. He enquired with the Accounts Team. He saw that the email approving the €18 (gross) per hour had come from the Manager, Mr. Harkin. He said that this had been done without his consent and that it had not been in line with the process for pay consultations or pay rises. He stated that if the Complainant had been on a pay rate of €18 per hour, that would have been an increase of approximately 33% which would not have been approved at any level. Cross-Examination: Mr. Marjoram was referred to the Complainant’s payslips dated June and July 2024. He confirmed that the Complainant was paid €18 (gross) per hour in July and August 2024. He stated that he contacted the Complainant after that date to say that there was an error in her pay. Mr. Marjoram stated that he noted in his email dated 29 August 2024 that the Complainant was on annual leave when he had emailed her regarding her pay. He said that there was no meeting arranged with the Complainant. Mr. Marjoram confirmed that the Complainant was promoted in June 2024 and that he wrote to her three months later outlining her pay. Mr. Marjoram denied that that the Complainant was dismissed from her job for asking for a contract. Mr. Marjoram stated that the Complainant had been treated in accordance with the Respondent’s policies. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00069349-001 – Complaint under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Change in Writing to Terms of Employment: The Law: Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (the “TE(I)A”) requires that when a term of employment changes, an employee should be notified in writing of the change: “(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. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a change occurring in provisions of statutes or instruments made under statute other than a registered employment agreement or employment regulation order, or of any other laws or of any administrative provisions or collective agreements referred to in the statement given under section 3 or 4.” Section 7 of the TE(I)A sets out the redress that may be ordered by an Adjudication Officer. Section 7(2)(d) provides that if a contravention is found, the Adjudication Officer’s decision may: “order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances”. (emphasis added). Findings and Conclusion: In her Complaint Form, the Complainant indicates “Under Section 5(1) of the Act, my employer was required to provide a written statement confirming my promotion and new pay rate within one month—meaning it should have been provided by July 4, 2024”. Following the Complainant’s promotion in June 2024, the Complainant’s rate of pay was increased and her job title changed. At the time, she did not receive a notification in writing of these changes, pursuant to section 5 of the TE(I)A. However, I note that the Complainant’s promotion and pay rate were confirmed in Mr. Marjoram’s email to the Complainant dated 29 August 2024. Pursuant to section 5 of the TE(I)A, the Respondent was obliged to notify the Complainant of a change to her terms of employment in writing. While this did not occur at the time of her promotion in June 2024, it did occur in August 2024. In those circumstances, it would be unjust to make an award of compensation for the technical breach and so I determine that no award of compensation should be made.
CA-00069349-002 – Complaint under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Core Terms: The Law: The TE(I)A sets out the basic terms of employment which an employer must provide to an employee in written form. Section 3(1A) of the TE(I)A obligates an employer to provide employees with certain essential information, or core terms, in writing within five days of commencing employment. Findings and Conclusion: Under cross-examination, the Complainant confirmed that she received her core terms of employment at the outset of her employment. However, she took issue with not being provided with an updated and / or new contract of employment for her role as a Team Leader. A copy of the Complainant’s original and only. contract of employment was put before me. The Complainant received her core terms of employment at the outset of her employment. The Complainant was not legally entitled to a new contract of employment following her promotion. In the circumstances, I find that this complaint is not well founded.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00069349-001 – Complaint under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Change in Writing to Terms of Employment: For the reasons set out above, I find that this complaint is well founded, however I determine that no award of compensation should be made.
CA-00069349-002 – Complaint under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Core Terms: For the reasons set out above, I find that this complaint is not well founded.
|
Dated: 07-07-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Key Words:
Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. |