Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Recruitment Administrator

A Recruitment Company

Representatives

Self-Represented

Hugh Hegarty, Peninsula Business Services

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by an Adjudication Officer under s27 of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023

CA-00072070-001

02/06/2025

The Complainant lodged a claim under section 27 of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.

The Complainant states that she was employed by the Respondent as a Recruitment Administrator in April 2024 and her duties were that of administrative support. The Complainant states that the first six months went very well and her performance review reflected that she was performing well in the role.

The Complainant states that at start of October 2024, a major event happened at home.  The Complainant states that her then 13 year old daughter was seriously sexually assaulted by a minor. She states that the incident was very traumatic for all the family. The Complainant states that at this juncture, her daughter was severely self-harming and had suicidal ideation and was under the care of Pieta services.      

The Complainant states at this time there was a lot of things going on in the background; she was receiving phone calls from the Gardai, detectives were calling to her house to take statements in relation to the incident as a case was being sent forward to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Complainant states that she was working 5 days a week in the office and given the traumatic events which unfolded, she made a request to the HR Manager, D for an arrangement to work from home a few days of the week.

The HR Manager informed the Complainant that the MD of the company, Mr P was not welcoming of the idea. The Complainant stated that she did not know if the HR Manager had informed Mr P of the serious issues that had arisen. The HR Manager reverted to the Complainant on 4 October 2024 agreeing to an arrangement whereby the Complainant could work from home 2 days per week. A written agreement to this effect was signed by both the HR manager and the Complainant and it was stated in the document that the arrangement would be reviewed on a monthly basis. The Complainant states that the written agreement also stipulated that any changes to the agreement would be communicated in advance.

The Complainant states that she commenced working from home two days per week. The Complainant states that the arrangement greatly facilitated her, in that, her daughter had to attend at the sexual assault unit of the hospital and forensics had to be taken and she had to undergo tests. The Complainant states that the matter was particularly traumatic as the perpetrator was also a minor who attended the same school as the Complainant’s daughter. The Complainant stated that she was able to carry out her duties while working from home 2 days per week and also to provide support and assistance to her daughter.

The Complainant states that in mid-December the MD of the company, Mr. P returned from India and stated that the arrangement was not working out and that the Complainant would have to return to the office the following day; Mr P stated that the arrangement was being revoked with immediate effect.

The Complainant states that the manner in which the arrangement was revoked was abrupt and not in line with the agreement set out which both parties signed. The Complainant states that with less than a day’s notice, she was summoned back to the office and had to try and prepare her daughter who was in an anxious and vulnerable state at this juncture.

The Complainant states that she requested from the HR Manager reasons in writing for the revocation of the working from home agreement. The HR Manager replied that Mr P has no valid reasons other than he does not agree with remote working and he was under the impression the arrangement was for 1 month only.

The Complainant states that following on from this, the Respondent subjected her to a hostile work environment. She states that her line manager, S who was in the role of Recruitment Co-ordinator became unwell and returned home to India. The Complainant states that she was not trained up to take on the role of Recruitment Co-ordinator but that following her line manager going sick, she was required to take on these duties. The Complainant states that she received no training with regard to processing employment permits. The Complainant states that when she brought this issue up at a meeting with Mr P, she was told by Mr P in an intimidatory tone that “I made your duties and I will tell you what they are”. The Complainant states that with regard to the written agreement on the working from home arrangement, Mr P said, “that document does not exist”.

The Complainant states that due to the stress of the situation in particular the intimidating and hostile work environment, her GP stated to her that she could not go back there and signed her out sick in January 2025 for 3 days due to work related stress. The Complainant states that following sending in her medical certificate to the Respondent, Mr P instructed an employee to send her several emails that day (which she included in her written submissions) questioning and querying the validity of her medical certificate.

The Complainant states that at her performance review which took place circa 6 months after commencement, she was informed that she was performing well in the role and that she was building good relationships with clients. The Complainant states that issues only started arising following the revocation of her working from home arrangement.  The Complainant states at this juncture she was being micromanaged, her work was being targeted and she received no training on how to process work permits. The Complainant states that Mr P was actively checking her work to try and find any fault so as to penalise and victimise her.

The Complainant states that at her performance review meeting at the 6 month stage, she had expressed an interest in the Recruitment Co-Ordinator role, however Mr P stated that she was not ready for the role of Recruitment Co-Ordinator but when S (Recruitment Co-Ordinator) got sick in December and went back to India, the Complainant was informed that she had to undertake these duties despite receiving no training for the role. The Complainant states that Mr P said to her at this juncture “this was always part of your duties”.  

The Complainant states that the processing of employment permits needs specific training and the form for completion is detailed, comprehensive and requires a large amount of data input. The Complainant states that those duties were quite onerous in that they included legal documents from various Government departments.

The Complainant states at this time, her work environment was horrible and it was clear to her that Mr P did not want her working with the company any longer. She states that “the rug was pulled from under her”.

The Complainant states that the Recruitment Co-ordinator, S following her return to work following a period of sick leave, informed the Complainant that Mr P had requested her to relay a message to the Complainant that she was not to speak or engage with Mr P under any circumstances.

The Complainant states that given the adverse treatment that she was subjected to, the hostile and intimidatory work environment, being requested to do duties in a grade above her role as Administrator (without any training) and the constant micro management by Mr P;  she felt that for the sake of her mental health and well being, she had no other option but to resign her employment. She states that her position became intolerable and untenable given the actions of the Managing Director, Mr P.   The Complainant states that following her resignation, she did not want to leave the company in the lurch and returned to the company to finish out her notice period; however she states that Mr P instructed the Recruitment Co-Ordinator, S to send the Complainant an email requesting her to finish up on 6 February and that she would be paid up to 6 February. The Complainant felt that Mr P wanted her out of the company without delay.

The Complainant states that even after 2/3 weeks of her employment relationship ending with the employer, she was still receiving numerous emails from the company with Mr P trying to apportion blame with regard to employment permits having been processed incorrectly by the Complainant.     

The Complainant submits that the Respondent is in breach of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 and that she was penalised by the Respondent for exercising her entitlement to a remote working arrangement.        

The Respondent’s position is that the Complainant was at no time penalised within the meaning of the Act or in any manner for making the request for remote working. The Respondent contends that the within claim is entirely without merit.

The Respondent states that it is a specialist recruitment and staffing company involved in the recruitment of nurses/care assistants from overseas in the health sector.

In its written submission to the WRC, the Respondent states that the Complainant commenced employment on or about 3 April 2024 as an Administrator. The Respondent states that in October 2024, the Complainant made a request for remote working; after careful consideration, the Respondent agreed to a trial arrangement for one month and then for the arrangement to be reviewed monthly thereafter.

It was submitted that the Respondent felt the arrangement was not working and requested the Complainant, in early December 2024, to return to the office and work as per her terms and conditions of employment.

The Respondent asserts that the Complainant has in no manner been penalised within the definition of Penalisation as set out in Section 26 of the Act. The Respondent states that the Complainant was not suspended, laid off or dismissed; demoted or lost an opportunity, had her duties transferred or had a change to her place of work, and no change was made to her working hours or wages. It states that the Complainant was not subjected to disciplinary action or any other penalty and was not the subject of coercion or intimidation.

The Respondent states that the Complainant makes reference to being contacted while on sick leave, however this arose in the context where the Complainant had told a work colleague that she would be out on annual leave on those days. The Respondent submits that in such circumstances, it is reasonable that any employer would question the Complainant on the medical certificate furnished.

The Respondent makes reference to the Complainant’s allegations that she was undertaking the role of a “Recruitment Co-ordinator” and that her role had changed. The Respondent states that this is entirely without merit as in the Complainant’s job description, it states as part of the job description; “Documentation with concerned departments for application process of candidates.”

The Respondent states that the Complainant was not overly scrutinised nor was the Complainant’s performance dealt with through any formal mechanism. However, it states that the Complainant’s attention to detail and frequent errors in completing forms and emails was mentioned to the Complainant. The Respondent states that these interactions were not beyond the normal interactions and discussion with an employee. The Respondent maintains that the Complainant was encouraged to take time and ensure the documentation was correct prior to sending as corrections once sent to the relevant government department take time and are more onerous to correct.      

In conclusion, the Respondent submits that the within claim is entirely without merit. The Respondent states that the removal/revocation of the working from home arrangement does not fit with a claim of penalisation. The Respondent submits that the Complainant has not demonstrated a causal link between the making of a request for a remote working arrangement and her penalisation claim.        

Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023

At the outset, it is important to outline the purpose of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 (the Act)…to give further effect to Directive (EU) 2019/1158 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on work-life balance for parents and carers and repealing Council Directive 2010/18/EU and, for that purpose and other purposes, to amend the Parental Leave Act 1998 to provide for the entitlement of certain employees to leave for medical care purposes and domestic violence leave and to request flexible working arrangements for caring purposes; to provide for the entitlement of employees to request remote working arrangements.

Termination in certain circumstances of remote working arrangement

22. (1) If, after the date on which an agreement referred to in section 21 (1)(b)(i) is signed by the employer and the employee (whether or not the approved remote working arrangement to which it relates has commenced), the employer is satisfied that the remote working arrangement would have, or is having, a substantial adverse effect on the operation of his or her business, profession or occupation, by reason of –

(a) seasonal variations in the volume of the work concerned,

(b) the unavailability of a person to carry out the duties of the employee in the employer’s place of business,

(c) the nature of the duties of the employee in the employment, or

(d) any other matters relevant to the substantial adverse effect on the operation of his or her business, profession or occupation,

the employer may, having regard to his or her needs, the employee’s needs and the requirements of the code of practice, by notice in writing terminate the arrangement and the notice shall specify the day (being a day not later than the date of the end of the period of the arrangement specified in the agreement referred to in section 21 (1)(b)(i), if any, nor, subject to the foregoing requirement, earlier than 4 weeks after the date of the receipt by the employee concerned of the notice) on which the employee must return to work.

(2) Where an approved remote working arrangement is terminated under subsection (1), the employee concerned shall return to the employee’s original working arrangement on the day specified in the notice under that subsection.

(3) A notice under subsection (1) shall contain a statement in summary form of the grounds for terminating the remote working arrangement concerned.

(4) Where an employer proposes to give a notice under subsection (1) to an employee of his or hers, the employer shall, before giving the notice, give notice in writing of the proposal to the employee and the notice shall contain a statement in summary form of the grounds for terminating the remote working arrangement concerned and a statement that the employee may, within 7 days of the receipt of the notice, make representation to the employer in relation to the proposal, and any such representations made by an employee to an employer within the period aforesaid shall be considered by the employer before he or she decides whether to give a notice under subsection (1) to the employee.

(5) A person shall retain a notice under this section given to him or her and a copy of a notice under this section given by him or her.

Protection of employees from penalisation

26. (1) An employer shall not penalise an employee for proposing to exercise or having exercised his or her entitlement to make a request referred to in section 20 (1) or section 24 (1).

(2) In this section, “penalisation” means 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, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing 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) If a penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (1), constitutes a dismissal of the employee within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015, relief may not be granted to the employee in respect of the penalisation both under this Part and under those Acts.

The Complainant is alleging that the Respondent is in breach of the legislation and that she was penalised within the meaning of the Act for exercising her right to a remote working arrangement, in that, her working from home arrangement was revoked incorrectly and with only 1 day’s notice and that following the revocation, she was subjected to an intimidating and hostile work environment, in that, she was being unfairly targeted by the MD of the company, Mr P. She further submits that the validity of her medical certs were queried and questioned by the Respondent and that she had a significant change to her duties, in that, she was required to take on the duties of her line manager (without been given any training to carry out same) who was employed in the higher grade of Recruitment Co-Ordinator.   

The Respondent contends that the within claim is entirely without merit. The Respondent states that the removal/revocation of the working from home arrangement does not conform with a claim of penalisation. It was submitted that the Complainant has not demonstrated a causal link between the making of a request for a remote working arrangement and her penalisation claim.

The Respondent states that the Complainant also raised the issue of the company checking up on her sick certificate. It accepts that this was subsequent to the revocation of the working from home arrangement. In relation to this matter, the Respondent submits that the Complainant’s colleague was under the impression that the Complainant had booked leave for the days in question. The Respondent states that it has every right to question a sick certificate and there is no law stating that an employee cannot be contacted while on sick leave.

The Respondent states that the Recruitment Co-Ordinator was out sick in December 2024 and January 2025 and the Complainant was simply requested to assist with the duties of that role.  The Respondent submits that at any rate, part of the Complainant’s job description in her own contract includes the following: “Documentation with concerned departments for application process of candidates.”

The Respondent stated that it accepts that the revocation of the working from home arrangement with only a day’s notice was not in line with the Code of Practice on Work Life Balance, in that, the company did not give four weeks notice of the revocation. However it states that for the purposes of the within matter under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, the claim of penalisation is completely without merit.

I have carefully examined all of the evidence adduced in the within complaint.

I note that on 4 October 2024 there is a written agreement signed by the HR Manager D and the Complainant wherein it stated that the Complainant could work from home 2 days per week. The agreement stated that the arrangement will be implemented on a trial basis for one month and reviewed on a monthly basis thereafter. The written agreement also stipulated that any changes to the arrangement would be communicated in advance.

At the hearing, the MD of the Company, Mr P gave evidence to state that he was not aware that the HR manager had given a remote working arrangement on an ongoing basis to the Complainant and that he understood it was only for one month and that when he returned from India, he did revoke the arrangement with immediate effect giving the Complainant one days’ notice and that she was to return to the office the following day. Mr P stated at the hearing “we don’t do that type of arrangement in this company”. 

On the basis of the evidence provided, I find that while Mr P gave the impression that the HR manager was acting independently in respect of giving the Complainant the working from home arrangement and that there appeared to be miscommunication between the HR manager and Mr P as he was in India at this juncture, the Managing Director is accountable through the principle of vicarious liability for the actions and conduct of its HR manager. While I note that the HR manager is no longer with the company, based on the correspondence submitted I note that she is very sympathetic to the Complainant and is content with the remote working arrangement which was agreed between the parties. I note from the Complainant’s testimony wherein she stated that the HR manager was very apologetic to the Complainant for Mr P’s actions with regard to the abrupt manner that the arrangement was revoked with 1 days notice without providing any objective reasoning for same.

On balance, I find that the actions of Mr P are unreasonable and go completely against the grain in terms of the Code of Practice on the right to request flexible and remote working.

Following on from the revocation, I note that the Complainant’s conditions of employment become hostile and intimidatory.  I note that in January 2025, the Complainant’s GP stated to her that “she could not go back there” and signed her out sick for 3 days due to work related stress.

The Complainant states that following sending in her medical certificate to the Respondent, Mr P instructed an employee to send her numerous emails while she was on sick leave (which she included in her written submissions) questioning and querying the validity of her medical certificate.

The Respondent states that a colleague of the Complainant was under the impression that the Complainant had stated to her that she would be out on leave on the days in question. I note that the Respondent did not provide any substantiation or corroboration of this assertion nor did it provide said witness at the hearing to back up this claim. I find the actions of the Respondent (contacting the Complainant on sick leave, interrogating the validity of her sick certificate) entirely unreasonable and in my view, this behaviour falls short of what one would expect from a reasonable employer. In that regard, I am cognisant that the Respondent’s business involves the recruitment of nursing staff and care assistants across the healthcare sector and I note that the company works closely with hospitals, care settings and stakeholders in the health sector.

I note that when the Recruitment Co-Ordinator, S got sick and returned to India, the Complainant was requested to take on her duties including the processing of employment permits. The Complainant stated that this role was a grade above her and required specific training and that there was no salary compensation for now carrying out the role of Recruitment Co-ordinator. The Complainant stated that the form for completion of work permits is detailed, comprehensive and requires a large amount of data input. The Complainant stated that she was informed by management that she was expected to oversee the whole recruitment process including work permits. The Complainant contends that those duties were quite onerous, in that, they included procuring legal documents from various Government departments and that she had received no training in respect of this work.

The Respondent submits that this work was always part of the Complainant’s duties as an Administrator. However, at the hearing on 4 March last, I requested the Respondent to furnish me within 7 days, a copy of the Complainant’s contract, a copy of the Recruitment Co-Ordinator contract and a copy of the Complainant’s 6 month performance review which they agreed to, however this   documentation was not forthcoming. In those circumstances I draw an inference from the refusal to furnish same.

On balance, I find that the Complainant has demonstrated that she was requested to carry out work and duties of a Recruitment Co-ordinator, which is a grade above her level without receiving appropriate training to carry out same or any salary compensation in respect of the significant changes in respect of her duties.

At the hearing, the Complainant gave testimony to state that she received a good performance review at the 6 month stage and management stated that they were happy with her work and that  she was making good links and had good rapport with the client groups. Based on the evidence I find that there was a significant change towards the Complainant after her exercising her right to a remote working arrangement as sanctioned by the HR manager. I note that this arrangement was revoked by the Managing Director on his return from India with only 1 day’s notice given and despite the Complainant’s request for reasons in writing for the revocation, none were forthcoming. The evidence given by the MD, Mr P at the hearing was that “we don’t do that type of arrangement in this company”.    

The Complainant states at this time, her work environment was horrible and it was clear to her that Mr P did not want her working with the company any longer. She states that “the rug was pulled from under her”.  The Complainant states that the Recruitment Co-ordinator S, following her return to work following a period of sick leave, informed the Complainant that Mr P had requested her to relay a message to the Complainant that she was not to speak or engage with Mr P under any circumstances.

On the basis of the totality of the evidence heard, I find that the Complainant was subjected to negative, retaliatory treatment following the revocation of the remote working arrangement in the form of a hostile work environment, excessive workload of duties above her grade, micromanagement and pressure which ultimately lead to her losing her job, a role that she took great pride in.

I accept the testimony of the Complainant wherein she stated that there was a fundamental breach of contract by the Respondent, a breakdown in trust and confidence and a unilateral change to her working conditions, in that, she was requested to carry out duties which were outside her contracted role. The Complainant states that she did raise the issue internally with management but that she was laughed at by the Managing Director Mr P who stated; “I made your duties and I will tell you what they are”.

The Complainant further stated that similarly when she requested reasons for the revocation in writing as she understood that the employer was required to give clear objective reasons for revoking the arrangement; this request was completely ignored by the Respondent.

I note the Complainant’s testimony with regard to the intimidatory work environment, being requested to do duties in a grade above her role as Administrator and the constant micro management by Mr P. I note her evidence at the hearing wherein she stated for the sake of her mental health and well being, given the difficulties in her work environment and the stress she was under, she felt she had no other option but to resign her employment. She states that her position became intolerable and untenable given the actions of the Managing Director, Mr P.  I note that she was informed by the Recruitment Co-Ordinator that Mr P had requested her to relay a message to the Complainant that she was not to speak or engage with Mr P under any circumstances. The Complainant stated that based on previous experience, she had no trust or confidence in management as regards addressing and resolving the grievances she raised.

I found the Complainant to be a compelling and convincing witness. I found her to be an honourable, hard working and diligent employee and it is a testament to her character that despite the difficulties she experienced with the company, she persevered and worked hard and processed the work permits as best she could despite not having been given the appropriate training and support by management.  By contrast, I found the testimony of the MD, Mr P to be dismissive and lacking in candour.

Having carefully reviewed all of the evidence presented in the within claim, I find that the Complainant has demonstrated a breach by the Respondent in its failure to fulfil its obligations under section 22 of the Act in respect of the revocation of the remote working arrangement. In this regard, I find that the Respondent has not complied with the specified notice provisions and requirements set out at section 22 of the legislation.  In those circumstances, I find that this complaint is well founded.

I find that the Respondent is in breach of section 22 of the Act. I order the Respondent to pay the  Complainant compensation in the amount of €2540 which equates to 4 weeks’ pay which I consider to be just and equitable in all of the circumstances. This award reflects the egregious nature of the treatment of the Complainant by the Respondent and the detrimental adverse impact on the Complainant.

I find that the Respondent is in breach of the legislation in its failure to fulfil its obligations under section 22 of the Act in respect of the revocation of the remote working arrangement. This complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €2540 which equates to 4 weeks’ pay.

Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Right to request remote working. Termination of a remote working arrangement. Penalisation.