ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060253
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Emma Vaughan | Rentokil Initial Ltd |
Representatives |
| Grainne Moran The HR Suite |
Complaint:
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-00073388-001 | 13/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. Parties were advised in advance of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted. The hearing was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Where submissions from parties were received including additional submissions, they were exchanged. The complainant gave evidence under affirmation and for the respondent Ms Donna Rodney HR Manager gave evidence under affirmation and Ms Vaness Stevens and Ms Grainne Moran were in attendance.
Background:
The complainant submits that she was not notified in writing of a change to her terms of employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Preliminary Issue: The complainant accepted that the word ‘Ltd’ be added to the name of the respondent. Substantive Issue: The complainant submitted that she was employed by the Respondent for 20 years and historically received an annual Christmas/attendance bonus. On or around 1 April 2024, she was promoted to Service Manager and at the time of accepting the promotion, she was informed that her existing terms and conditions would remain the same. She accepted the role on that basis and prior to signing her new contract, the Complainant signed the Attendance Bonus Criteria letter on 21 October 2024, confirming her eligibility. Two days later, she signed a new contract which excluded the bonus, without written notification or explanation regarding the change and was not consulted about or made aware of this change before signing. The Christmas bonus was historically paid every year and formed part of the Complainant’s normal remuneration. The Complainant raised a formal grievance regarding the bonus. An internal investigation confirmed that she had not been notified in writing of the change and despite this finding, the Respondent maintained that the bonus would not be paid. It was submitted this constitutes an admission that proper statutory notification was not given.
The complainant submits that the Act requires that any change to remuneration be notified in writing within one month. The Respondent failed to notify the Complainant of the removal of her bonus and by failing to provide this notification, the Respondent breached its obligations under the Act. In addition, under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the non-payment of an agreed and historically paid bonus constitutes an unlawful deduction from wages.
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE The complainant submits that she always received an attendance bonus and was not advised that a promotion would result in her not receiving this attendance bonus and had been told existing terms of employment would remain with the promotion. She raised a formal grievance on 20/12/2024 as she was not notified of any changes regarding the attendance bonus. When she was seconded to the role in 2023 she received this bonus and a letter on 21/10/2024 that all terms would apply and she only found out in her pay slip of December 2024 that she did not get the bonus and her manager had approved her receipt of the bonus and she got an outcome to the appeal of the grievance on 06/06/2025. The respondent were relying on a slide deck and she disputes that she ever saw that slide deck.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT Under cross examination she recalled a letter of April 2024 but said it was a long time ago and was told it replaced other bonus and not this attendance bonus that she claiming for and her understanding was that all other terms remained and did not understand that the attendance bonus would be replaced as it was not communicated and she was told it replaced a different bonus. She raised the issue with her line manager and raised a grievance. Her claim is the nonpayment at Christmas and there had been many clerical errors by the respondent with her new contract.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Preliminary Issue: The respondent requested that the word ‘Ltd’ be added to the name of the respondent. Substantive Issue: It was submitted that the complainant was issued a letter dated 26/04/2024 re the GMBS bonus scheme and within one month of the change and confirmed the complainant was part of this bonus scheme for 2024, and explained how the GMBS bonus scheme worked and confirmed that it replaced any previous bonus / incentive schemes to which she may have been entitled to as part of her terms and conditions. The letter included the following: “The 2024 Group Management Bonus Scheme (GMBS, hereafter: the “Scheme”) supersedes all previous incentive plans and programmes to which such Managers have been eligible.”
This letter was re-issued to the complainant by the Company as she had requested same via her line manager. The complainant commenced a secondment from her supervisor role into a Service Manager role -October 2023 and was in receipt of a secondment allowance in addition to her normal terms and conditions of employment. The respondent offered the complainant permanency in the Service Manager role effective 01 April 2024 and an offer letter issued 24 June 2024. A GMBS bonus letter was issued to the complainant 26 April 2024 to notify her of her new bonus scheme replacing any previous bonus schemes she may have been entitled to. The Service Manager Offer was not accepted by the complainant due to salary and salary negotiations between the complainant and the company were ongoing from June 2024 to October 2024.
The Complainant continued to be seconded in the Service Manager role for the above time period and was continually in receipt of secondment allowance. She was not confirmed as permanent in the Service Manager role at that point. Attendance bonus letter was issued to the complainant by the respondent on 21 October 2024 as she had not yet signed her new contract and her details were still on the attendance bonus system in relation to her old contract. This is a standard letter that goes only to the cohort of staff entitled to the attendance bonus, which is a legacy scheme not currently offered to any new hires or promoted roles, but was part of old terms and conditions for some staff including the complainant. An updated contract was finalised for Service Manager permanent role change 23 October 2024, issued to the complainant on that date and signed by the complainant on 23 October 2024. The Company as a gesture of goodwill backdated the new permanent contract to the original offer date which was 01 April 2024. A letter issued to the complainant on 20 December 2024 confirmed she would not be entitled to the attendance bonus as she had now signed her new contract for the service manager role).
Complainant’s entitlement to her new GMBS bonus for 2024 was in place and she was paid same in October 2024 and again in March 2025. This replaced the attendance bonus and the Complainant’s entitlement to GMBS bonus continued into 2025.
EVIDENCE OF DONNA RODNEY HR MANAGER If the complainant was unhappy with the attendance bonus she did not have to take the role and if she did not accept the terms of the new role she could have remained in her previous role. The complainant raised her query through a grievance after not receiving the attendance bonus. CROSS EXAMINATION Under cross examination she said the letter about the bonus was issued after and did not specifically refer to the attendance bonus. There was no proof the complainant received the slide deck presentation.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
Preliminary Issue: I note the respondent’s request to amend the respondent’s name adding the word ‘Ltd’ and with no objection to the complainant and no party prejudiced by same I have amended the name of the respondent. Substantive Issue: The complainant submits that she was not notified of a change to her terms of employment, namely that she would not be entitled to an attendance bonus. The respondent submits that she was aware of this and further submits that the complaint is out of time.
Section 5 providesNotification 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.
Section 41(6) sets out: Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relate. Section 41(8) outlines An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause
The complainant commenced employment on 30/05/2005 and employment ended on 26/09/2025 and the complaint was received by the WRC on 13/07/2025. It was not in dispute that correspondence was issued to the complainant dated 23/10/2024 regarding a promotion to Service Manager backdated to 01/04/2024 and that she had also received notification on 21/10/2024 outlining details of the attendance bonus. It was not in dispute that the complainant did not receive the attendance bonus in December 2024 raised a grievance on 20/12/2024 and her grievance was not upheld and the appeal of her grievance was not upheld and she was notified of this in a letter dated 06/06/2025.
I find in all the circumstance that the cognisable period is 14/01/2025 to 13/07/2025 and that the complainant became aware of the change on 20/12/2024 and I do not find her wish to progress the grievance as reasonable reason to extend the cognisable period.
I find that during the cognisable period there were no changes to the terms of employment and I find that the complaint is not well founded and dismiss the complaint.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find that the complaint is not well founded and dismiss the complaint. |
Dated: 06th of May 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Cognisable period, attendance bonus, change to terms of employment |