ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057863 This case is conjoined with ADJ 57865
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Frank O'Connell | Glanmire Area Project Clg |
Representatives | Appeared In Person with support | Shane McSweeney, Mc Sweeney & Company Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint 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-00069364-001 | 18/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00069364-002 | 18/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00069364-003 | 18/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. | CA-00069364-004 | 18/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00069364-008 | 18/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00069364-009 | 18/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/12/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 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 at public hearing and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
On 18 February 2025, the Complainant, Lay Litigant and Caretaker, employed under a CE Scheme submitted several complaints against the Respondent, Glanmire Area Project CLG. The complaints were handwritten and submitted in incremental stages thus requiring successive requests for further clarification before they could be processed. It is noted that this case is conjoined with ADJ 57865 (Separate decision) The Complainant outlined that he had been employed as Caretaker at Watergrasshill Community Centre from 15 November 2014 to his termination date of 17 October 2024. He earned €295.50 in respect of a 19.5 hr. week. There were some ambiguities in the complaint form as the complainant mentioned an employer, first in time, before the respondent. The Complainant named his current employer Glanmire Area Project CLG and included a signed contract naming that entity as his employer. He also exhibited a letter of concern from his Solicitor from October 2024 alongside some recent medical certificates to explain his absence from work. The complaint form was shared with the Respondent on 8 April 2025. On 23 May 2025, the Respondent came on notice in the case through the Office of Mc Sweeney and Co. who expressed some difficulty in comprehending the complaints.
On 13 June 2025, the WRC informed the Complainant of the update detailed below:
Parallel Dismissal Complaints Withdrawal
I refer to the Commission’s letter dated 09/04/2025 requesting you to advise the Commission in writing not later than 42 days of that letter if you wished to withdraw the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. As you have not responded to that letter your complaint of dismissal under the Employment Equality Act 1998 (CA-00069364-022) is now deemed to have been withdrawn and the Commission will now make arrangements to process the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
Other discrimination complaints referred, if any, (not related to dismissal) will now proceed to adjudication.
On 26 August 2025, both parties were invited to a hearing on the case on 31 October 2025, which was subsequently cancelled and rescheduled for December 19, 2025.
As I was struck by the apparent duplication on both complaint forms in ADJ 57863 and 57865, which were bound together, it seemed, by a twin track approach under Transfer of Undertakings. I wrote to the Complainant seeking some clarity to aid my preparation for hearing and to seek to assist in the Respondent reported difficulties in comprehension.
On 21 October 2025, I wrote to the Complainant. DearFrank O'Connell,
I am the Adjudicator assigned to hear your case on 31 October 2025 in WRC Cork Office.
As I prepare for hearing, I note that you have submitted a parallel set of complaints against Watergrasshill Community Association in ADJ 57865. This will be a joint hearing.
I would be grateful if you could revisit your written submission in the 21 complaints listed above and tailor the submission specifically to the 21 reported contraventions of employment legislation. I will need to be able to understand the nature of the contravention.
I will not be able to accept any documents on the day of hearing. I would welcome a clarification and any paperwork pertaining to a Transfer of Undertakings.
To aide you in that progress, please check out the WRC guide to preparation for hearing.
You will appreciate that the hearing will proceed in public on the employment rights complaints ………
You will be asked to give evidence on the employment rights complaints.
…………………
I would be grateful if you could forward.
1 recent pay slip 2 records of any grievance raised. 3 details of efforts to find new work, table of financial loss. 4 records of sick leave
I require these written submissions as soon as possible as they will need to be shared with the Respondent.
I will close by stating to the parties that it remains open for both parties to seek to resolve some or all of these issues prior to hearing.
I look forward to meeting the parties at hearing. The Complainant did not engage with my requests and continued to send uncoordinated correspondence to PRU.
On 23 October 2025, the Respondent submitted a composite submission, which was shared with the Complainant. The case proceeded to hearing alongside ADJ 57865 on 19 December 2025. In advance of the December hearing, I requested the complainant’s co-operation in the submission of relevant documentation, which was ignored by him. He, did however, took issue with the respondent completed submission, received prehearing.
I had an opportunity to work with the parties on the composition of the 18 February 2025 claim form. The complainant withdrew a large number of his claims, all withdrawals were acknowledged and accepted by the Respondent at hearing.
After the hearing concluded, I followed this up by distributing a record of the remaining live complaints for Decision purposes.
I received the requested CE Manual, albeit dated May 2025, which postdated the circumstances of this case. I also had the opportunity to review the details of the CE scheme/ DSP, which goes to the center of this case. In all, I was met with an extraordinary set of circumstances, with high levels of hostility as demonstrated by the complainant and a palpable apprehension from the Respondent on really how he should or could be managed. It is a regrettable set of circumstances.
I requested the complainant confine himself to submitting requested documentation only for the purposes of the hearing. Eventually, on 22 December 2025, I had cause to apply the WRC unreasonable conduct policy towards the complainant as he perpetuated in uncanvassed documents. I fully understand that the circumstances surrounding litigation are frequently accompanied by tension, apprehension and even fear. I appreciate that this is not a route people take lightly and they have a need to be heard and their request for a remedy responded to in Decision.
However, the Adjudicator needs to be given time and space within which to consider the case made by the parties and for neither party to stray out the cordial rules of engagement as set down in the WRC Operational Policies. During the hearing, the complainant exhibited hostile and aggressive behaviour on occasion, but in particular during cross examination. I sought to diffuse the situation by giving him a break with his support group. However, I had to inform the complainant that his behaviour was unacceptable at hearing and if not remedied, I would summon the Gardai. He heard me on this. At the conclusion of the hearing, I directed the Complainant against any further correspondence to the WRC, and he accepted this, but issued abusive and unjustified commentary over the following weekend. I sought the protection of the unreasonable conduct policy to support my need for a safe space to bring the claims to decision.
The conjoined cases absorbed 7 hours in hearing time and an additional 40 minutes permitted for an unsuccessful trial at resolution.
The Complainant took the oath to accompany his evidence. Ms. Angela Murphy, CE Supervisor, also took the oath.
I did not have the benefit of a central CE scheme representative, who may have guided me to Scheme wide conflict resolution mechanisms in a long-standing employment. This is no slight on Ms. Murphy or the community organisations. I simply include this observation as this was a dispute that you just do not meet every day. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted a broad dossier of complaints on 18 February 2025. He outlined that he was serving as a Caretaker at Watergrasshill and had been treated unfairly, bullied, dismissed and discriminated against. He also submitted complaints regarding a Transfer of Undertakings. The Complainant presented as a Lay Litigant and was accompanied by support people. At hearing on 19 December 2025, through engagement and request for particulars, he withdrew the majority of these complaints, leaving
CA-00069364-001 Terms of Employment The Complainant submitted that he had not been provided with a statement of terms of employment. He outlined the historical context of his employment bases of Watergrasshill Community Centre and a Secondary community hall. He submitted a large volume of narratives and positive testimonials regarding his work and his sense of pronounced displacement at being expected to move to Riverstown. When asked what was omitted in his contracts 2014-2024?, he was vague and launched into the his sense of being alienated by his sponsor . CA-00069364 -002 Change in terms of employment The Complainant had not particularised this complaint as requested in advance of hearing. He confirmed that he signed the 2024-25 contract on 8 October 2024 but couldn’t cross match the changes he was expected to make at Watergrashill and the contract. It was an inappropriate request. When asked to address his acceptance of the relocation to nearby Riverstown? He remarked this was an inappropriate request made to him. CA-00069364-003 Statement on core terms The Complainant submitted that he had not been provided with core terms in his 2024 contract. He did not particularise this claim on what was omitted and once more relied on a narrative of the ongoing dispute. CA-00069364-004 More Predictable and Secure conditions The Complainant submitted that he had requested a transfer to Forrest Fruits Community Hall and this was refused. He submitted that this amounted to a contravention of the Act. He said that he was seeking more predictable working conditions to replace this habitual on call arrangement. He was unable to point to a request made in writing but placed the timing of his request as October 4, 2024. CA-00069364-008 Discrimination on Gender grounds The Complainant submitted that he was discriminated on grounds of gender when his chosen comparator, Ms A was treated more favourably than he was. He was opposed to her arrival which eroded his previous work in Forrest fruit, and he did not have a clear understanding on what scheme she had been hired. The email chain reflects Secad/ Tús. Mr OConnell acknowledged that Ms A’s grandchildren and his attended the same school, but her appointment had alienated him as he “was now doing all the heavy lifting “ Ms A wasn’t asked to do anything dangerous. He was unable to provide any instance of discrimination during the cognisable period. Mr OConnell acknowledged that he was envious of Ms as apparent preferential arrangement. He conformed that he had chased payment for the additional hours served in the First Fruits over the years The Complainant told the hearing that he had not submitted an official grievance. He accepted that he and Ms A were not employed by the same employer but was steadfast that he had been treated less favourably than she. CA-00069364-009 Victimisation The Complainant clearly struggled to ventilate his remaining claims at hearing. He acknowledged that Ms Murphy had forwarded him the tools for conflict resolution which remained unused. His claims rested on “I was moved without my consent “. The Complainant spoke at length on his effective history as Caretaker, he submitted a dossier of positive testimonials which concurred with this personal view. He also chronicled a seismic change management surrounding the operation, function, culture and governance of watergrass hill two community facilities which had alienated him since 2023 onwards. He was aggrieved by Ms as arrival at Forrest Fruits and had submitted a claim for pay parity with her in October 2024. He was aghast that Watergrasshill had questioned his management of the facilities and had reluctantly entered a conflict resolution process, which he contended had paused to give him time to consider his options but which Glanmire had interpreted as him stoically accepting a transfer to nearby Riverstown. Glanmire told him via Ms Murphy that the Watergrasshill was not prepared to host him any longer and they, Glanmire were unable to stand in their way. An earlier proposal to change the timing of his roster was hopeful, but not viable. He did not return to work after his annual leave but maintained email correspondence prior to referral to WRC in February 2025. When Mr Mc Sweeney engaged in cross examination, he sought clarity in the objective of the claims lodged. He put to the complainant “Isn’t that what this is about, a quarrel and a resentment against watergrass hill Community leaders? The Complainant became emotional and responded saying “I would have done anything citing he had lifted heavy tables and supported community groups “ He criticised the Watergrasshill leaders when he said they disregarded his welfare and took away his character. As the response was profound, loud and accusatory, I intervened by setting down the acceptable parameters for conduct at hearing. I drew on recent guidance from the President of the High Court in that regard. I told the complainant and his party that he persisted with the aggressive behaviour; I would call the Gardai to protect the hearing. The Complainant acknowledged that he did not work for Watergrasshill and declared “I am here because I was denied a transfer and to oppose the reasons why it was blocked. That is why I am here “. The Complainant acknowledged that he did not have recourse to union advice of representation and he had sought guidance from his legal advisor alone. The Complainant did not exhibit a live CE Scheme Participation Development Programme. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was represented by Mr Shane Mc Sweeney, who had sought to capture the respondent difficulty in the case by way of outline submission prehearing, when he said: “The Complainant has lodged a very lengthy complaint form, which is difficult to follow, not least because parts of it appear to be missing or are poorly copied and moreover, it is difficult to follow the handwritten narrative. He had lodged multiple complaints (19) and in broad terms, it is difficult to make sense of shame. Much of the narrative set out by the Complainant appears to be unrelated to the matters in hand “ The Complainant had not addressed these thoughts prehearing and the hearing was tense as a result. The Respondent rejected all claims made. In outlining the context and background of the Respondent employment arena, Mr Mc Sweeney described a state funded company limited by guarantee, managed by a voluntary board, incorporated in 1990 aimed at “Pressing for much needed services and facilities in the Glanmire area “ The Respondent operates various DSP funded Community Employment schemes on behalf of the sponsor, which in this case is Watergarsshill Community Association. The Respondent employs the Supervisor of the CE Scheme and 17 CE Scheme participants across 18 different locations. There are a Managing Director and Supervisor. Background: The Complainant works 19.5 hrs per week alongside her personal farming responsibility. He was based across two community facilities at Waatergarsshill and had not caused concern previously for the respondent as he had a good work ethic. He worked across evening times. The host community facility obtained funding via Tús in late 2024, which prompted the appointment of Ms A, who took over the cleaning aspect of the complainants’ role in the secondary community facility. The Complainant was mistaken that Ms A received the same pay as he did for a lesser hour’s commitment. Staff relations deteriorated between the complainant and the host, who had differing views on how the centre should operate. This culminated in the complainant agreeing to transfer to Riverstown Community Centre in his care taking role from November 4, 2024. He has not returned to work from sick leave and annual leave but remains employed. The Respondent acknowledged that the Complainants longevity of employment outside the usual time limits on this supported training scheme. The Respondent contended that the complainants serving parallel claims on both named employers in this conjoined case amounted to “an abuse of process “ By way of background, Mr Sweeney outlined that the composition of Watergrass hill Community Association changed in 2024. This change was not supported by the complainant, who had already raised a concern that he had been replaced in a portion of his work by Ms A, on a Tus scheme. Governance in Watergrass hill became more strategic and sought to remedy some of the apparent risks surrounding a laissez faire approach to evening opening, where concerns on anti-social behaviour abounded. The Complainant had been requested to refuse entry to youths of concern to the Committee but refused in stating that this was not part of his role. The Community Association at Watergrasshill sought to protect the time tabled activity and streamline it from youth activity. the Complainant opposed this saying the youths “have nowhere else to go “. This led to efforts to realign the complainant’s roster from post 6 to pre 6 pm with volunteer presence in the evening. The Complainant, on prompting produced his own roster which did not resolve matters. On October 8, 2024, the Complainant was found to have opened the Community facility and admitted “a large number of unsupervised youngsters “which incensed the Community Association further. The Complainant proceeded on sick leave before attending a conflict resolution meeting on October 17, 2024. This was a tense meeting but concluded in the complainant agreeing to transfer his hours to nearby Riverstown Community Centre with flexibility on roster compilation, When Glanmire sought to implement this, the complainant changed position and interpreted the re-deployment as a compulsory act. He became accusatory towards Ms Murphy. The Complainant resumed sick leave and has not returned to work. Mr Mc Sweeney analysed the background and concluded “…. The Complainant appears to have adopted a doctrinaire approach to the matter and has an apparent expectation that his employment is set in stone, and he has a right to continue to do the work in Watergrasshill, in the face of that body’s vociferous opposition to that “ Ms A has since become a participant in the CE Scheme and has been fulfilling the role undertaken by the Complainant. The Respondent had endeavoured to place the complainant in a safe workplace. It did not have the authority to impose his presence at Watergrasshill set against a “a breakdown in the relationship between the sponsoring watergrass hill and Mr OConnell. CA-00069364-001 Terms of Employment The Respondent has rejected the claim. The Complainant was provided with a statement of terms before commencing employment in 2014 and has been provided with annual updates. CA-00069364 -002 Change in terms of employment The Respondent has rejected the claim. They rely on the email shared between Ms Murphy and Mr OConnell dated 25 October 2024 “When the conflict resolution meeting was being concluded on Thursday, October 17, 2024, you stated “I would be better off taking the transfer “I agreed with you and told you I would organise everything. I told you to rest and enjoy your annual leave, I also confirmed I would be in contact with you on 25 October … As per our conversation today, I notified you the transfer was successful. You have informed me you don’t want to move now. The Respondent relied on the mobility clause in the complainant’s contract, attached. “ CA-00069364-003 Statement on core terms The Respondent has rejected the claim. The 2024 provided exceeded the requirement to provide a statement of core terms. CA-00069364-004 More Predictable and Secure conditions The Respondent has rejected the claim. The Complainant worked a fixed 19.5 hr week and the claim is misconceived. He had not made a request for “banded hours “ CA-00069364-008 Discrimination on Gender The Respondent has rejected the claim as misconceived. The Complainant had put Ms A forward as his comparator. Ms A was not employed by the Respondent during the circumstances of the claim. Ms A was aligned to a number of sponsors before commencing employment with Glanmire in January 2025, prior to the submission of the claim CA-00069364-009 The Respondent rejected the claim as the complainant had not actioned a complaint of Discrimination and had not adduced evidence . Evidence of Angela Murphy, by Oath, CE Supervisor, Glanmire, June 2021. Ms Murphy has been involved in the CE Scheme system since 2017. There were 17 participants on the CE Scheme, which had capacity for 24. There was no recognisable forum for this team to meet. The Complainant had an unusual profile of longevity within the CE Scheme and had been permitted to stay on post Covid. She recalled that early in October 2024, the Complainant had demanded to sign a new contract. He had refused to sign earlier on 26 September 2024. The new contract was posted to him on 1 December 2024. There were notifications of change in his terms as “there were no changes “. Ms Murphy was keen to impart that she understood how the complainant perceived difficulties in his host location. She was aware that the host site had expressed reservations regarding the complainant staying at the hall for his allocated hours. She had no knowledge of the Complainants chosen comparator as this lady; Ms A was not a participant on the CE Scheme at Glanmire. The Complainant had raised her presence when he sent an e mail dated October 15, 2024. “Hi Angela, I will accept the same pay as Ms A, nothing more nothing less “ Glanmire was not empowered to impose a solution on the host site. When Watergrasshill declined to accommodate the complainant in a secondary location. “We did not have the authority to make them” Ms Murphy acknowledged that staff relations between the Community Association and the Complainant had broken down. Genuine efforts had been made to intervene and restore harmony through suggestions through offering time off and changed rosters. The Complainant accused her of “not fighting for him “ The Complainant had difficulty in seeking to resolve the dispute but matters deteriorated when he departed a meeting aimed at resolution and visited the host site. He had been provided with the health and safety policy, dignity at work and Harassment and had been invited to make an official complaint but did not do so. The Complainant was offered an opportunity to cross examine the witness but chose to rehash the events discussed. The Respondent concluded that the claims were all without merit and requested the Adjudicator consider the evidence adduced at hearing and dismiss the claims as abuse of process . |
Findings and Conclusions:
When I first received this case, I was requested to reach Decision in over 40 complaints lodged against the current respondent and the named respondent in ADJ 57863. I did all in my power to focus the complainant to engage in the WRC hearing requirements of submission completion, complete with relevant documents. This did not occur as planned. Instead, the Complainant adopted an unusual approach of submitting “pen pal “correspondence with the WRC. He submitted frequent updates on his analysis of his situation, but crucially did not particularise his claims. I fully respect the complainant is a Lay Litigant, but it is reasonable to expect that he at some point prehearing provide an outline written submission linked to his claims of contravention of the law. I spent an inordinate time at hearing chasing that essential clarity. The Complainant did not engage with my requests for pay slips which may have short circuited his reliance on having both employers in ADJ 57863 and 57865. He did not provide a letter of dismissal, loss or mitigation, or details on TUPE or the letter where he requested more predictable hours of work. I understand that the complainant has a right to submit a handwritten complaint, which he did, but he also holds a responsibility to particularise his claims in date time and occurrence. The Respondent came to hearing clearly apprehensive of the complainant. By then, they had imposed an email only declaration on inter party correspondence from October 2024. They denied dismissal and said the complainant had been on sick leave since his redeployment to Riverstown. All efforts to trouble shoot, resolve conflict and restore the complainant to his CE scheme had been fruitless. The parties had reached an impasse. I found the Complainant to be genuinely upset at the “out in the cold place “where he found himself at hearing. I have not understood why he did not process his grievances through the scheme in which he had participated for 10 years. I found that he acted contrary to his own self interest when he became volatile and accusatory at hearing. I have some understanding of his sense of disconnect in an evolving Community Association, which he had status , but I have sought to balance this against the objective of the CE scheme to relaunch back into main stream employment rather than an award of tenure . He did not notice, as I did that the Respondent delegation had come to hearing to try and sort things out with him. He did not master or manage his anger towards this group. I wish to acknowledge the time given by Glanmire at representative, CEO and Supervisor on 19 December 2025. Their message was that in the triangular employment such as CE Scheme Sponsor / Host Employer Complainant They did not have the tools to force the issue at Watergrasshill and instead tried to negotiate a viable alternative. The Complainant resisted this change and resorted to lashing out at those who tried to help him the most. These are very sad circumstances and perhaps have come about through the Complainants A typical presentation as an extended in time CE Scheme Participant cast against a radical change agenda of an ascending Community group in Watergrasshill, who were forward focused. The complainant had been instrumental in how Watergrasshill Centres were run and was clearly overwhelmed by the omnipresent changes in direction.
However, at the WRC, I must respect the live complaints made and I must arrive at a decision at first instance in all 6. The claims are made under law, and the decisions must follow suit.
CA-00069364-001 Terms of Employment Section 3 Written statement of terms of employment. 3.— (1) An employer shall, not later than one month after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment, that is to say— (fa) to (q) I have reviewed the first contract Q Glanmire Area Project ltd 25 August 2014 to 21 August 2015 This document is unequivocal in identifying the employment relationship. It was signed by both parties on 28 November 2014 I also reviewed the most recent statement of terms signed by both parties on 8 October 2024. Both parties acknowledged that the complainant had received sequential temporary contracts for 10 years. I would like the parties to reflect on this alongside annualised inherent probation against the provisions of the Protection of Fixed term workers Act, 2023. The Complainant withdrew these complaints at hearing. I have established a compliance with the terms of Section 3 of the Terms of Employment, Information Act 1994, in all provisions bar (ga) that the employee may, under section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000, request from the employer a written statement of the employee’s average hourly rate of pay for any pay reference period as provided in that section The Complainant earned in excess of the Minimum wage of €13.50 per hour during 2024. This is a technical and subsisting breach of the Act. The claim is part well founded. CA-00069364 -002 Change in terms of employment Section 5 of the Act 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, I find this claim is not well founded as there is a mobility clause in the terms of employment and no change actually occurred outside of the exploration of that mobility. I accept Ms Murphys evidence in that regard. The claim is not well founded. CA-00069364-003 Statement on core terms Section 3 (1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1), an employer shall, not later than 5 days after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment, that is to say: (a) the full names of the employer and the employee. (b) the address of the employer in the State or, where appropriate, the address of the principal place of the relevant business of the employer in the State or the registered office (within the meaning of the Companies Act 2014); (c) in the case of a temporary contract of employment, the expected duration thereof or, if the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the date on which the contract expires;[(d) the remuneration, including the initial basic amount, any other component elements, if applicable, indicated separately, the frequency and method of payment of the remuneration to which the employee is entitled and the pay reference period for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000; (e) the number of hours which the employer reasonably expects the employee to work— (i) per normal working day, and (ii) per normal working week (f) where sections 4B to 4E (in so far as they are in operation) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 apply to the employer, the employer’s policy on the manner in which tips or gratuities and mandatory charges (within the meaning of section 1 of that Act) are treated, (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. I have addressed the reference to the pay reference period for the purposes of the National Minimum wage Act 2000 in my earlier decision. In considering that the complainant commenced work in 2014 with annual contract renewals to October 2024, I find this complaint is outside the statutory time limit as open to me under Section 41(6) of the Workplace relations Act 2015. The claim is not well founded.
CA-00069364-004 More Predictable and Secure conditions Transition to another form of employment 6F.— (1) Subject to subsection (2), an employee who has been in the continuous service of an employer for not less than 6 months and who has completed his or her probationary period, if any, may request a form of employment with more predictable and secure working conditions where available and receive a reasoned written reply from his or her employer. (2) An employee may, once in any 12-month period, request a form of employment in accordance with subsection (1). (3) An employer shall provide the reasoned written reply referred to in subsection (1) to an employee within one month of the request by the employee. The Complainant has submitted that Section 6F was breached when he sought to transfer to forest Fruits on October 4 ,2024. The Statement signed by both parties had a 10-week probationary period from 12 August 2024 where I believe “attend “is meant to read “extend “. It had a handwritten probation review date due by 6 November 2024. This was overtaken by the complainant’s absence on sick leave. I find that the complainant was marked as a probationary employee on October 4, 2024, when he sought to relocate to Forrest Fruits, which was not a strict participant in his CE scheme, but an area he had staffed for many years. I find that he was not eligible to advance a request under Section 6F for want of completion of his probation. I find the claim is not well founded. CA-00069364-008 Discrimination on Grounds of Gender, Harassment. The Complainant has submitted that he was treated less favourably than Ms A, A Tas worker, but has not led evidence from which I can infer that Discrimination may have occurred on gender or in relation to harassment. He did not respond for requests for details on his comparator and appeared to write to a previous Chairman at Watergrasshill surrounding his dismissal. His evidence reflected that Ms A was given lighter duties than he was and he was not persuaded by the Respondent evidence that Ms A was on a different supportive scheme and was not employed by Gloanmire at that time. During cross examination, he distanced himself from this claim completely when he declared that his reasoning for this claim and others was because of a rejected application to move to Forrest Fruits Hall. He submitted a paper, while no probative indicated that Forrest fruit was not in the CE Scheme approved training areas. I find this is a situation where I am compelled to dismiss the claim as misconceived. Dismissal of claim. 77A.— (1) The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission] may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter. (2) (a) Not later than 42 days after the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission] dismisses a claim under this section, the complainant may appeal against the decision to the Labour Court on notice to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission] specifying the grounds of the appeal. (b) On the appeal the Labour Court may affirm or quash the decision.
The Complainant was provided with conflict resolution policies to address his grievance at glanmire, and I find that he leaps frogged over those and came to the WRC prematurely without utilising these policies. He did not adduce evidence of Discrimination outside of bare allegations not accompanied by facts. I dismiss the claim as made in bad faith and misconceived. CA-00069364-009 Victimisation The Complainant submitted that he was penalised in his employment for having raised a complaint of Discrimination. I have spent a considerable period of time exploring this claim. Mr OConnell did not adduce evidence of having made a complaint Discrimination outside of bare allegations not accompanied by facts. Instead, he acknowledged in cross examination that he had weaponised this Act to provide him a vehicle to complain his employers for having opposed his request for transfer as he was envious of Ms as status which he viewed was more valued by his Sponsor. This is the language of an unspoken grievance. While I fully respect that the complainant experienced a high amount of distress by the changes which evolved at Watergrass hill. I cannot establish that he made a complaint of Discrimination, for which he was victimised. At its height, I established that he sought the same pay as Ms A in October 2024, but he has not advanced an equal pay claim. I dismiss the claim as made in bad faith and misconceived.
|
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. Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with Sections 5, 5 and 6F of that Act. CA-00069364-001 Terms of Employment The claim is part well founded. In line with my powers under Section 7( 2)(b) ( ii) , I order the Respondent to address the omission under the national minimum wage provisions within 4 weeks of this Decision .
CA-00069364 -002 Change in terms of employment The claim is not well founded.
CA-00069364-003 Statement on core terms In considering that the complainant commenced work in 2014 with annual contract renewals to October 2024, I find this complaint is outside the statutory time limit as open to me under Section 41(6) of the Workplace relations Act 2015. The claim is not well founded.
CA-00069364-004 More Predictable and Secure conditions
The claim is not well founded.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act. CA-00069364-008 The Complainant was provided with conflict resolution policies to address his grievance at glanmire, and I find that he leaps frogged over those and came to the WRC prematurely without utilising these policies. He did not adduce evidence of Discrimination outside of bare allegations not accompanied by facts. I dismiss the claim as made in bad faith and misconceived.
CA-00069364-009 While I fully respect that the complainant experienced a high amount of distress by the changes which evolved at Watergrass hill. I cannot establish that he made a complaint of Discrimination, for which he was victimised. At its height, I established that he sought the same pay as Ms A in October 2024, but he has not advanced an equal pay claim. I dismiss the claim as made in bad faith and misconceived.
|
Dated: 22nd June 2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
Unreasonable Conduct Policy, Poor Staff Relations, Terms of Employment, Discrimination, victimisation . |