Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Valentina Apaschin

Derrycourt Company Limited  

Representatives

N/A

Mr. John Barry, Management Support Services.

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-00075931-001

01/10/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00076067-001

06/10/2025

The Complainant worked as a Cleaning Operative for the Respondent from November 2024 until October 2025. Most recently, the Complainant earned approximately €14.10 per hour and worked 40 hours per week.

The Complainant outlined in her Complaint Forms that she was penalised for complying with or making a complaint under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act. She further outlined that she received a statement of core terms which deliberately contained false or misleading information. The Respondent denied the allegations in full.

The Complainant provided detailed written and oral submissions.

The Complainant – Oral Evidence:

The Complainant outlined that she was penalised as she was not paid on a few consecutive occasions. She stated that she was not paid for one week of holiday. She also outlined that the Respondent deducted €76 from her pay.

The Complainant stated that she was required to lift heavy items, such as large quantities of plates and heavy containers of milk. She said that despite her raising the issue with management on a number of occasions, nothing was done about it. She also stated that the Respondent was short-staffed and that while the hiring of more staff was subsequently approved, no staff were actually hired.

The Complainant stated that she attended hospital in May 2025. She stated that when she returned to work, the Respondent sought a fitness to work certificate from her. The Complainant stated that her signature was already on the necessary return to work documentation that was provided on a laptop by the Respondent. She believes that this is penalisation.

Finally, the Complainant stated that she suffered from a hernia.

Cross-Examination:

The Complainant stated that she could not remember if she felt that she was penalised for raising the issue of having to carry heavy items.

She said that she could not remember how she was penalised.

She said that she could not remember when she first raised the issue of having to lift heavy items.

The Complainant was referred to the fitness to work documentation and confirmed that it was her signature. She further confirmed that the same documentation contained no reference to carrying heavy containers of milk.

The Complainant stated that spoke with Mr. Ghidut and Ms. McKenna about why she thought she had appendicitis. The Complainant said that she raised the issue a number of times.

The Complainant confirmed that when she discussed the matter of carrying heavy items with Mr. Ghidut, he told her to carry the plates in smaller batches. She said that this was easier for her, but that she did not have the time to do it.

The Complainant accepted that she was not penalised and said that she does not remember a lot of it.

The Complainant confirmed that she received a copy of her terms and conditions following the TUPE. She said that there was no false or misleading information in that document. The Complainant stated that by “false or misleading” information, she was referring to her signature on the fitness to work documentation. 

The Respondent provided detailed written and oral submissions.

Mr. Ghidut – Oral Evidence:

Mr. Ghidut outlined that he was the Complainant’s Manager.

Mr. Ghidut stated that on 2 May 2025, the Complainant sent him a text message, stating that she needed to leave work early as she felt unwell. He replied that she could leave and that she could recoup her hours over the course of the next day. He asked the Complainant to let him know if she would not attend work the next day. She thanked him for his understanding. However, the next day the Complainant did not come into work.

When the Complainant returned to work, she told Mr. Ghidut that she had attended A&E for suspected appendicitis. Mr. Ghidut stated that he sought a medical certificate. He said that the Complainant provided a certificate from another doctor. 

Mr. Ghidut stated that when they met, the Complainant only raised the issue of carrying plates. She said that she had been rushing and carrying more plates than usual. He said that he reminded her of the manual handling procedures. He also got a trolley onsite. He said that there was no mention of lifting heavy containers of milk.

Mr. Ghidut stated that the Complainant went home early from work in August 2025, due to abdominal pain. She sent a text message to Mr. Ghidut stating that the pain was caused by repetitive lifting at work. In response, Mr. Ghidut said that he told her to avoid any lifting. He reallocated her tasks and told her to focus on cleaning certain areas instead.

Mr. Ghidut stated that when the Complainant completed the fitness to work documentation, he opened up the previous documentation on his laptop that they had used. He said that they used her signature from the previous occasion. He stated that he knew that this was not best practice. He stated that this was what the Complainant meant when she referred to her signature being on the document already.

Cross-Examination:

Mr. Ghidut confirmed that the Complainant told him that she could not remember much about the time she attended the doctor.

CA-00075931-001 – Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994:

The Law:

The Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994, as amended, provides that employers must give employees certain information about their employment, such as a contract of employment, a job description, rate of pay and hours of work.

Findings and Conclusion:

In the course of her cross-examination, the Complainant confirmed that she received a copy of her terms and conditions following the TUPE. She said that there was no false or misleading information in that document. In the circumstances, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00076067-001 – Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005:

The Law:

The main legislative provisions relating to safety, health and welfare at work are contained in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, as amended, (the “SHWWA”). Section 27 of the SHWWA provides protection for employees against penalisation for having exercised a right under the SHWWA:

“Protection against dismissal and penalisation.

27.—(1) In this section “penalisation” includes any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects, to his or her detriment, an employee with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), penalisation includes—

(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001), 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 of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty), and

(e) coercion or intimidation.

(3) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee for—

(a) acting in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions,

(b) performing any duty or exercising any right under the relevant statutory provisions,

(c) making a complaint or representation to his or her safety representative or employer or the Authority, as regards any matter relating to safety, health or welfare at work,

(d) giving evidence in proceedings in respect of the enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions,

(e) being a safety representative or an employee designated under section 11 or appointed under section 18 to perform functions under this Act, or

(f) subject to subsection (6), in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he or she could not reasonably have been expected to avert, leaving (or proposing to leave) or, while the danger persisted, refusing to return to his or her place of work or any dangerous part of his or her place of work, or taking (or proposing to take) appropriate steps to protect himself or herself or other persons from the danger.”

Findings and Conclusion:

Under cross-examination, the Complainant stated that she could not remember if she felt that she was penalised for raising the issue of having to carry heavy items. Under cross-examination, she accepted that she was not penalised and said that she does not remember a lot of it. She further stated that she cannot remember how she was penalised. In the circumstances, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00075931-001 – Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994:

For the reasons set out above, I find this complaint not well founded.

CA-00076067-001 – Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005:

For the reasons set out above, I find this complaint not well founded.

Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994; Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005.