TED2614

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00057626 (CA-00070132-001).

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 6 October 2025 in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2012. 

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17 June 2026. 

The following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

The is an appeal by MSD International GmBH T/A MSD Carlow against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (Adj-00057626, CA-00070132-001, 29 August May 2025) in a complaint made by Patrick Donohoe, under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (the Act).

The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was well founded and awarded the sum of €6,136.00 as compensation.

A Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 6 October 2025.

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 is employed as a Procurement Specialist since November 2019. His role was site based in Carlow, servicing the Carlow site. The Respondent contravened the Act as he was not notified in writing of fundamental changes to his written terms and conditions of employment, following structural changes announced in the company at a global level 2023. 

After structural changes were announced in 2023, the Complainant became part of a new team. His reporting line changed, as he was required to report to a new manager who was US based. The nature of the Complainant’s work changed significantly, as his role changed from a site-based role in Carlow, to a regional role where he was required to carry out project work for other sites in Ireland and globally. He was also required to attend work one day a week at the Ballydine site in Tipperary.

The Complainant submits that these changes constitute significant amendments to his terms and conditions of employment that were implemented without prior notification or advance discussion.

The Complainant lodged a formal grievance with his employer. He received an addendum to his contract on 1 August 2025, which he refused to sign due to a lack of consultation and engagement from management. He was issued with a new job description that changes his job title.

       3. Summary of the Respondent’s Position

No changes were made to the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment that constitute a breach of the Act.

The Complainant commenced employment on 25 November 2019 as a Procurement Specialist, based at the Carlow site. He was issued with a contract of employment dated 21 October 2019, which was signed and dated by the Complainant.

In April 2023, structural changes were announced at a Global level that fundamentally impacted Site Procurement Leads. The Complainant was a Procurement Specialist in a P3 role. There were minimal changes to his role, and he remained based on the Carlow site.

The Complainant’s reporting line changed to Ms JK, Director Strategic Programs, Biologics Sourcing & Procurement, who was based in the US. The second change was that his role involved spending one day a week in the Ballydine site in Tipperary.

The Complainant engaged in a dialogue process with his new line manager about his work and about whether the work that he was carrying out was more appropriately aligned at P3 level. This was a long running issue for him over previous years. 

The Complainant’s contract of employment from 2019 contains express flexibility provisions regarding duties, reporting lines, and travel. 

The restructure announced in 2023 did not trigger a requirement to notify the employee of a "change" under Section 5 of the Act.

Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the Respondent facilitated the Complainant with a comprehensive internal grievance process. Throughout that process, the Complainant maintained their title, salary, and remote working arrangements, suffering no financial loss or detriment. A 2025 Addendum which subsequently issued to the Complainant was merely an administrative clarification arising from a grievance, not a statutory necessity.

 4.    The Relevant law

Section 3 (1A) of the Act sets out certain terms that must be contained in a written statement of terms of employment, including the following:

         (g) the place of work or, where there is no fixed or main place of work, a statement specifying that the employee is employed at various places or is free to determine his or her place of work or to work at various places;

         (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;

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

The Court’s jurisdiction in the within appeal is confined to assessing if the Respondent breached the Act by failing to notify the Complainant in writing of a change to the terms of his employment, as required by the Act.  The Court has no jurisdiction to consider a complaint about an employer’s alleged failure to notify an employee about employment terms that fall outside the scope of the Act, or about any other workplace disputes.

The Complainant contends that he was not notified of fundamental changes to his written terms of employment, after structural changes were announced in 2023.

Firstly, the Complainant contends that the nature of his work changed significantly, as his role changed from a site-based to a regional role where he was required to carry out project work for other sites in Ireland and globally.

The Act at Section 3(1A)(h) requires an employer to give an employee details in writing about the job title, grade, nature or category of work for which the employee is employed or alternatively provide the employee with a brief specification or description of their work. 

The Complainant’s contract of employment contains the following clauses:

“6.0 Duties

You will be employed as Procurement Specialist and you will report to Director. You are required to be flexible in this position and must be prepared to undertake such work as may be assigned to you by the Company from time to time. Such work can be done outside your normal duties. The Company also reserves the right to change your reporting line.

The Company reserves the right to vary your duties from time to time to suit business needs/changes in business requirements”.

The Complainant’s contract of employment states that his job title is “Procurement Specialist”. The Court heard that the Complainant remains employed as a “Procurement Specialist”. The terms of the Complainant’s contract of employment specify that the Respondent has the right to direct him to undertake such work as is assigned to him from time to time in his role as a “Procurement Specialist”.  In this case, the Complainant remains employed as a “Procurement Specialist” and continues to carry out duties associated with that role, albeit those duties now have a regional dimension. The Court finds that as there was no change to the Complainant’s job title of “Procurement Specialist”, there was no requirement for the Respondent to notify him of a change in relation to that matter.

The Complainant further contends that he was not notified of a change to his place of work when his role changed from carrying out site specific work based in Carlow. 

The Act at Section 3(1A)(g) requires an employer to give an employee, particulars in writing in relation to his or her place of work or, where there is no fixed or main place of work, a statement specifying that the employee is required or permitted to work at various places.

The contract of employment, signed by the Complainant in October 2019, contains the following clauses:

“5.0 Place of work

Your normal place of work will be at the Company’s premises at the above address. You may from time to time be required to work and travel within Ireland and abroad.  The Company reserves the right to change your work location on giving reasonable notice. Where applicable as per MSD, relocation costs may be payable”.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant’s employment continues to be based at the Carlow site, as stated in his contract of employment. It is clear that under the terms of his contract of employment, the Respondent has the right to direct the Complainant to work at other locations from time to time. The Respondent further submits that the Complainant is entitled to avail of travel expenses when working elsewhere, including when required to attend work at the Ballydine site.  The Complainant did not refute that matter. The Court heard that the Complainant has worked remotely from his home since instigating a workplace grievance about his contract terms.  Notwithstanding that fact, having regard to the submissions made, there was no change to the Complainant’s employment terms relating to his place of work, as he remains based at the Carlow site.

Finally, the Complainant contends that after the structural changes were announced in 2023, he became part of a global team and was required to report to a new manager who was US based. While it may be good practice to do so, there is no statutory requirement to notify an employee of a change of line manager or team membership. In any event, the Court notes that the contract of employment specifies that the company reserves the right to change the Complainant’s reporting line.

The Court finds that the changes made following the 2023 restructure did not materially change the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment, such that there was a requirement for the Respondent to notify him of any changes to his written terms of his employment as set out his 2019 contract of employment.

Having regard to the submissions made the Court finds that the Complainant has failed to make out a case that the Respondent contravened the Act by failing to notify him of changes to his terms of employment, as required by statute.

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 set aside.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
02/07/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.