Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Norman  Mullen

Irish Prison Service

Representatives

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-00078141-001

01/12/2025

The Complainant appeared in person at the hearing. A submission was received and relied upon at the hearing.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

It was the Complainant’s submission that he commenced on a No Nights roster on 30 June 2018, which formed part of his working arrangements. He later took up a Work Training Officer (WTO) role on 10 April 2021. He gave evidence that, having accepted the WTO role, he was subject to a three-month cooling-off period, allowing him to return to his previous role. Due to rostering difficulties, he stepped down after approximately five weeks and emailed HR on 21 May 2021 seeking to return to his No Nights roster.

However, he was instead placed on a roster involving night duty. When he raised this, the ACO responsible for rostering informed him that his No Nights position had been allocated to another officer, despite the cooling-off arrangement.

The Complainant submitted that he received assurances from the ACO and his POA representative that he would be accommodated, including being placed back at the top of a waiting list, which he stated was recorded in a diary, though no timeframe was given.

He stated that in early September 2025, having learned that additional No Nights positions had arisen due to increased staffing, he made inquiries through his POA representative and was informed that no list existed with his name on it. He then met with the HR Governor on 7 September 2025, who accepted that he should not have lost his No Nights roster and arranged for him to be allocated one. He received a 12-month roster (1 January–31 December 2025) on 15 October 2025, which clearly showed an 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. schedule with no night duty, and he commenced on that basis.

However, he gave evidence that approximately one week later, this roster was removed following a complaint another officer. He raised the matter again with the HR Governor, who requested a timeline and again acknowledged that he should not have been removed from the No Nights roster. No further communication was received since that date.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that the Respondent was properly notified, as a registered letter containing the hearing Webex link was sent on 19 May 2026. Prior to this, a hearing notification letter was sent to the Prison on 21 April 2026, and the Complaint Form was also sent by post to the Prison by letter dated 3 December 2025.

At the outset of the hearing, a request was made to again contact the Respondent, who was advised that the hearing was open and that the Adjudication Officer was waiting. A copy of the Webex link was sent to the email address provided.

After waiting a reasonable period, the hearing commenced at 9.51 a.m. (21 minutes after the scheduled time). There was no appearance by the Respondent at any stage during the hearing, which concluded at 10.36 a.m.

The Complainant also stated that he had spoken to the HR Governor a few weeks prior to the hearing date and had advised him of the pending hearing. The email address used was confirmed by the Complainant as the same address he had previously corresponded with in communications with that HR Governor.

Accordingly, as the Respondent had been given every opportunity to attend and had been properly notified, the hearing proceeded in their absence.

Section 5(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (the “Act”) provides that where any change occurs in the particulars previously furnished to an employee, the employer is required to notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change, as soon as may be thereafter and not later than the date on which the change takes effect.

The Complainant’s evidence was undisputed, and I accept it in full.

I am satisfied that the Complainant had previously held a “No Nights” roster, which formed part of his established working arrangements prior to his appointment as a Work Training Officer. I further accept that, following engagement with the Respondent, the Complainant was issued on 15 October 2025 with a 12-month “No Nights” roster, arising from discussions on 7 September 2025, during which it was acknowledged that he should not have lost that arrangement and that he was to be prioritised for such a roster.

The subsequent removal of that roster shortly thereafter constituted a clear change to the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment, specifically his working hours. This change was made without the agreement of the Complainant and, critically, no written notification of the change was provided to him, as required under Section 5 of the Act.

Accordingly, I find that the Respondent failed to comply with its statutory obligation to notify the Complainant in writing of a change to his terms of employment.

For these reasons, I find the complaint to be well founded.

Section 7(2) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 provides that where a complaint is well founded, the Adjudication Officer may require the employer to comply with the relevant provision and/or award compensation as is just and equitable in the circumstances, up to a maximum of four weeks’ remuneration.

I have found that the complaint is well founded. The Respondent failed to comply with Section 5 of the Act by not providing the Complainant with written notification of a change to his terms and conditions of employment.

Pursuant to Section 7(2)(i), I direct the Respondent to ensure compliance with Section 5 of the Act by providing the Complainant with written notification of any future changes to his terms and conditions of employment.

Pursuant to Section 7(2)(ii) and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the breach, its impact on the Complainant’s working arrangements, and the Respondent’s failure to engage with the process, I consider it just and equitable to award the Complainant three weeks’ remuneration.