Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Lisbet Karina  Lopez Trocel

Ksg Catering

Representatives

Robert Jacob of Jacob and Twomey Solicitors

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-00073746-002

24/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00073746-003

24/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00073746-005

24/07/2025

The Respondent in this matter is a catering firm which operates on site cafes and canteens in corporate offices, airports and universities. In March 2023 they were successfully awarded a contract to operate a number of cafes/ hospitality lounges in Dublin Airport.

The Complainant was one a number of staff who transferred with that contract and was promoted to Supervisor soon after due to her high performance and her focus on standards.

In early 2024 the Complainant transferred to another lounge in the airport. In February 2025 the Complainant was asked to work in the kitchen to monitor compliance with the Respondent’s processes and procedures. Over the course of 2025 the Complainant and a number of her colleagues had disagreements.

As the Complainant was an airport worker the Respondent was required to carry out audits seeking additional documentation to maintain her Valid Airport Identity Card issued by the DAA. One of these occurred in 2025 and the Respondent sought a number of documents from the Complainant. When the Complainant did not supply these doocuments they put her on lay-off on the 21st of May.

On the 24th of July 2025 the Complainant filed complaints under the redundancy payments acts, the employment equality acts and the terms of employment information acts.

At the outset of the hearing I raised a number of preliminary questions about the scope of these complaints as they related to the acts that they were submitted under. I explained the limitations of my role as an Adjudication Officer and asked the parties to focus on certain net issues which they agreed to do. These specific issues determined the complaints and as such I have avoided recording details of the wider dispute between the parties, which though important to both parties, did not determine this outcome.

The Complainant gave evidence under oath. She worked extremely hard for the Respondent but was ultimately treated extremely unfairly by the company and a number of individual colleagues.

The Respondent disputes treating the Complainant unfairly and submits that they made significant efforts to address any concerns raised with them.

CA-00073746-005 Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

Both parties accept that the Complainant was on lay-off at the time this complaint was submitted and had not been made redundant or terminated at that time.

CA-00073746-003 Employment Equality Act, 1998

The Complainant clarified that her allegations regarding discrimination, related to the 12 months before the date of her complaint, were not allegations of discrimination on the basis of one of the nine grounds outlined in the Employment Equality Acts.

The Complainant alleges that she was treated differently by some colleagues because she sought to uphold standards and the Respondent’s policies and procedures. This does not constitute discrimination as prohibited by Section 8 of the Act.

While the Complainant did raise further allegations of discrimination which potentially could come under the scope of the act, these were outside of the time limits set out in Section 77 of the Act.

CA-00073746-002 Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

Section 3 of the terms of employment information act provides that an employer must issue an employee with certain written terms of employment and Section 5 requires an employer to notify the employee of any changes to these terms. It is agreed that the last time the Complainant received such a notification on the 16th of June 2023 when she was moved from receptionist to supervisor.

The Complainants evidence was that when she was reassigned to the kitchen in February 2025 her duties changed radically and she had to engage in food preparation due to a lack of chefs. The Complainant’s evidence is that she ended up engaged primarily in food preparation for about three months though this was not her role and that the Respondent failed to issue any updated terms of employment reflecting this change in role.

Section 3 specifies that an employer must provide to an employee:

(h) either—(i) the title, grade, nature or category of work for which the employee is employed, or (ii) a brief specification or description of the work;

While I accept the Complainant’s evidence that her work changed in those months the Respondent had satisfied its obligations under subsection h by setting out the grade she was employed at, i.e. supervisor. As this grade did not change the requirement to issue a further notification was not triggered.

CA-00073746-002

I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00073746-003

I find that the complaint is not well founded

CA-00073746-005

I find that the complaint is not well founded