ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00060437

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  04/06/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. 

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359 of 2020, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Background:

The Complainant submitted a complaint on 17 July 2025 that she was not notified of additional hours as per Section 17 of the Act.  She also submitted a document with some other complaints against her employer.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was employed from 2 August 2024.  She is on long term sick leave from 19 May 2025.  She submitted her complaint on 17 July 2025 that she did not receive proper notification of hours she was required to work which complaint was submitted under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.  She submitted an email to the WRC on 17 July 2025 to say she had additional complaints summarised as follows:

Lack of response from her employer to complaints

Unequal treatment

Failure to give full time hours

Lack of control over recording hours

Lack of work organisation

Lifting heavy pallets

Allegations regarding hygiene issues

Being forced to change job duties

Hourly wage reduction

Allegations of racism

The Complainant stated that she was aware that she had submitted her complaint to the WRC ‘I am not notified in advance of any additional hours’.  She then stated that she has a long list of grievances including ‘wrong payslips’, ‘wrong hours’ and stated “it is all there”.  She stated that she was informed of the shifts she had to work but not until at earliest 5pm the day before the shift.  Sometimes she would get a text at 8.30pm to come in the next day at 8.30am. She stated that she wants all her claims and complaints to be examined.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Complainant referred the following complaint to the Commission and which said complaint was received by the Commission on 17th July 2025. Accordingly, the relevant period for the said complaint is the six month period expiring on 17th July 2025. As the Complainant has been absent on sick leave since 19th May 2025 the period under scrutiny is 20th January 2025 to 19th May 2025. During this period there is only one reference to notification of rostering, being 6th February 2025 (given 15 hours’ notice instead of 24 hours. There is no detail regarding additional hours, rather she complains about her hours being cut.

We can rely on s17(4) of the OWTA The contract allows for additional hours-         

Employee Handbook states as follows

Additional Hours

You may be required to work additional hours from time-to-time to meet the needs of the business and flexibility in this regard is a prerequisite to employment with the company. In the event that you are required and requested to work additional hours, the company will provide as much advance notice as possible. Employees are not permitted to work additional hours without the expressed approval in advance of their Manager / Supervisor.

CA00073528-001 Complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 regarding hours of work and alleging that she ‘was not notified in advance of any additional hours’, contrary to section 17 of the Act of 1997. Regarding this said complaint the Respondent relies on s.17(4) of the said Act. roster is posted on the Notice Board and employees are told verbally. 

The Respondent relies on s17(4) of the Act f 1997. On 18th July 2025 the Complainant forwarded documentation amounting to ten pages, the content of which said ten pages have no relevance or bearing to complaint regarding hours of work. Documents received six months post 19 May 2025 containing fresh complaints are statute barred.

We are also currently awaiting a response to ours of 16th July 2025 as to whether there are any reasonable accommodations we can put in place in order to expedite return to work.

THE FACTUAL MATRIX

The Complainant commenced employment on 3rd August 2023 with the Respondent as a General Operative. The Complainant was furnished with a contract of employment.

The Complainant furnished the Respondent with a medical certificate stating that the Complainant is unfit for work due to ‘a medical illness’ from 20th May 2025 to 17th June 2025. Thereafter to the date hereof the Complainant continues to be certified as unfit for work due to a medical illness with the latest certificate being for a period up to 9th September 2025. In a letter issued to the Complainant on 16th July 2025 the Respondent queried with the Complainant as to whether there are any reasonable accommodations that can put in place in order to expedite her return to work. The Complainant did not respond to this letter and on 17th July 2025 referred the within complaint to the WRC.

Matters were uneventful for a time until the Complainant, who is Polish, started taking issue with her Supervisor, a fellow country woman. Whereas the Complainant did request not to work in the cold area at work and whereas the Complainant did refer grievances to the Respondent, none of these said grievances related to a failure to notify of additional working hours.

Taking into account the nature of the Respondent’s business, both from the point of view of the actual nature and the seasonal nature, it is necessary at times for employees to work overtime. However, it is never compulsory for the employees to so do. This could amount to approximately one to one and a half extra hours per day at particular times of the year.

In the interests of fullness the Respondent sets out hereunder the detail of the request not to work in the cold room and the said grievances, albeit the said detail is not germane to the complaint before the Commission.

On 31st July 2024 the Complainant had an informal meeting with HR and at which she informed HR that Ms S had been making remarks about her and giving her ‘dirty looks’ which made her feel uncomfortable. The Complainant was informed that it would be investigated and that if it happened again she was to bring it to the attention of HR and that it would go the formal disciplinary route.

On 28th November 2024, there was a meeting with the Complainant regarding her refusal to go into the cold room, following which on 11th December 2024 the Complainant presented the Respondent with a medical note, and which said note was part of the ten pages submitted by the Complainant to the WRC, and wherein the doctor, author of the said note, stated as follows:-

This lady, Lena Pilarek attends today for this letter. She explains that the cold at work can affect her hips and knees and movement problems. She requests to NOT work in cooler places and therefore this letter is being sent at her request.

Of note, the doctor who signed the said note does not certify that the cold at work is causing problems but rather is a reportage explained by the Complainant to the doctor. Neither does the said doctor recommend that the Complainant not work in cold areas. Since that time the Complainant was not put working in the cold room save for one occasion on 27th November 2024 and when she agreed to work there.

In an undated email the Complainant submitted a detailed account of grievances summarised as follows:

Complaint about being moved from one duty to another, allegation of one persone being accommodated over her, feeling stressed when she went home, being told to start work at 8am instead of 6.30am therefore cutting her hours, allegations of bullying, mobbing and psychological abuse.

On 21st May 2025, the Respondent received a formal written grievance from the Complainant dated 19th May 2025.

The Respondent replied on 26th May 2025 stating that they were arranging a grievance hearing with an external independent Barrister who would deal with the Complainant’s issues in a timely manner as soon as she was deemed fit to return to work.  An interpreter would be provided and the Complainant was asked if she could provide contact details and agreement for the Investigator Ms Donovan to contact her directly.

The Complainant replied stating that she was agreeable for her contact details to be provided to the Investigator but she was unable to participate due to her medical issues and that she would contact the Respondent immediately she was able to participate.

Correspondence was exchanged between the Complainant and the Respondent in which the Complainant stated that she would not submit ‘another complaint’ to the Investigator Ms Donovan.  The Respondent clarified that Ms Donovan was to investigate the Complainant’s current complaints.

The Complainant replied that she wished her complaints to be investigated as soon as her health is satisfactory, and that she would  contact the Respondent to arrange a meeting and receive questions from Ms Donovan regarding each complaint, as well as to prepare a separate report for each complaint. She requested that all complaints be considered chronologically, following the dates they were submitted, and that she would be present at that meeting with a third party as her key witness and with her lawyer.

The Respondent replied on 16th July 2025 as set out hereunder and as noted above the Complaint did not respond but referred a complaint to the WRC.

We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 15th July 2025. Ms Donovan will address your complaints in chronological order. Whereas the grievances to be heard by Ms Donovan relate to the grievances set out in your letter of grievance dated 19th May 2025, you will be given an opportunity to fully deal with the grievances you allege you referred in November 2024. In the interests of clarity, Ms Donovan will meet with you and go through each grievance, following which the minutes or record of the hearing will be agreed with you and then a report detailing the outcome of each grievance will be provided. The hearing will be in person and you should bring with you all documentary evidence which you wish Ms Donovan to consider. There is no automatic right to have legal representation at a grievance hearing, particularly as you are not the alleged perpetrator. However, we have no objection to your having legal representation present with you.

We await hearing from you as to when you wish to have the grievance hearing. Meantime, you might let us know if there are any reasonable accommodations we can put in place in order to expedite your return to work.

LEGAL SUBMISSION

It is submitted that it is clear from the Complainant’s letter, that what she complains about is not ‘additional’ hours but rather a change of hours.

Regarding the complaint before the hearing, alleging any failure to notify of ‘additional’ hours the Respondent relies on s.17(4) of the Act of 1997 and indeed on the contract of employment.

17.—(1) If neither the contract of employment of the employee concerned nor any employment regulation order, registered employment agreement or collective agreement that has effect in relation to the employee specifies the normal or regularstarting and finishing times of work of an employee, the employee’s employer shall notify the employee, subject to subsection (3), at least 24 hours before the first day or, as the case may be, the day, in each week that he or she proposes to require the employee to work, of the times at which the employee will normally be required to start and finish work on each day, or, as the case may be, the day or days concerned, that week, and the employee’s employer shall ensure the work takes place within predetermined reference hours and days.

(1A) When the requirements of subsection (1) are not met by the employee’s employer, an employee shall have the right to refuse to work during the reference hours and days predetermined by the employer in accordance with that subsection without adverse consequences.

(2) If the hours for which an employee is required to work for his or her employer in a week include such hours as the employer may from time to time decide (in this subsection referred to as “additional hours”), the employer shall notify the employee, subject to subsection (3), at least 24 hours before the first day or, as the case may be, the day, in that week on which he or she proposes to require the employee to work all or, as the case may be, any of the additional hours, of the times at which the employee will be required to start and finish working the additional hours on each day, or, as the case may be, the day or days concerned, of that week.

(3) If during the period of 24 hours before the first-mentioned or, as the case may be, the second-mentioned day in subsection (1) or (2), the employee has not been required to do work for the employer, the time at which the employee shall be notified of the matters referred to in subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be, shall be not later than before the last period of 24 hours, preceding the said first or second mentioned day, in which he or she has been required to do work for the employer.

(4) A notification to an employee, in accordance with this section, of the matters referred to in subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be, shall not prejudice the right of the employer concerned, subject to the provisions of this Act, to require the employee to start or finish work or, as the case may be, to work the additional hours referred to in subsection (2) at times other than those specified in the notification if circumstances, which could not reasonably have been foreseen, arise that justify the employer in requiring the employee to start or finish work or, as the case may be, to work the said additional hours at those times.

(5) It shall be a sufficient notification to an employee of the matters referred to in subsection (1) or (2) for the employer concerned to post a notice of the matters in a conspicuous position in the place of the employee’s employment.

It is submitted that the Respondent did not breach the terms of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and the complaint cannot be well founded.

Findings and Conclusions:

This complaint was received on 17th July 2025.  It was submitted under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.  Section 27 of the Act provides that a complaint may be referred for adjudication in relation to contraventions of the provisions of the Act.  In this instant case, the Complainant referred a complaint that her employer, the Respondent breached the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, namely that she was not notified of additional hours.  

In this instant case, the Complainant’s contract of employment does specify the normal work hours and the Employee Handbook states that employees may be required to work additional hours.  I find that this complaint is misconceived and the Respondent was not obliged to notify the Complainant 24 hours before her shift.  In relation to additional hours, I find no evidence to support any contention of a breach of that provision of the Act.

I note the long list of grievances which the Complainant had, I note the Respondent’s strenuous efforts to have her grievances investigated and I note the Complainant referred the issues to the WRC without availing of the Respondent’s offer to have an external independent Barrister Investigate her complaints. 

In relation to the Complainant’s request that the hearing considers and adjudicates upon her various grievances and complaints, under which no specified legislation was cited, case law provides that while broad discretion can be exercised to investigate complaints, the general nature of the complaint must be consistent with the initial claim (see County Louth VEC v The Equality Tribunal).

The High Court has also determined that administrative tribunals (under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission) can allow amendments to original claims as long as the general nature of the complaint remains the same.

In this instant case, the complaint that the Respondent breached the provisions of the Act in relation to additional hours is not well founded.  I do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on any of the other complaints submitted.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Based on the reasons and findings above, I have decided that the complaint is not well founded.

Dated:   15/07/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: