Case Number: ADJ-00027997. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00027997
• Hearing Date: 28 September 2020
• Date: 01 January 2021
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Respondent: A Limited Company

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION and RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027997

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	An Employee	A Limited Company

Representatives Self Anne Lyne Hayes solicitors

Complaints:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00035973-001	01/05/2020
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00035973-002	01/05/2020
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00035973-003	01/05/2020

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/09/2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaints and dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints and dispute.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

CA 35973 -001 The Complainant commenced employment with the respondent on a fixed term contract on the 21 January, 2019. The complainant was led to believe, following a conversation with his employment agency that he would be made permanent. When he attended for interview with the respondent, he asked if the contract would be permanent. He was assured that it would be and that “we won’t let a good man go”. The Complainant accepts that he was given an extension to the end of February to cover holidays. The complainant is at a loss to know why he was not made permanent. He knows there was lots of work to do and that others were employed after he left. CA 35973 – 002 The Complainant applied for the position of Supply Chain Analysis. His contract of employment was based on that role. His titled was changed and as a result the role. He was not provided with new terms and conditions of employment to reflect the change. CA 35973 -003 The Complainant was carrying out his duties in relation to his new role. Any mistakes he made resulted in him being reprimanded in front of all of the other employees who worked in his open plan office. Nobody else was treated like that. He did not witness anyone else being given out to in the office. He raised a grievance, by way of email, in relation to the treatment he was being subjected to. He did expect that the e-mail would be treated as a formal written grievance, but it was not. The complainant would like a recommendation directing the Respondent to treat all e-mails containing grievances or complaints as a notice of a formal grievance.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

CA 35973 -001 The Complainant was first employed by the Respondent under a fixed-term contract of employment provided to the Complainant by letter dated 11 January 2019. The Complainant accepted the offer of employment on 14 January 2019. The Temporary (Fixed Term) Statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment states that the employment commencement date was 21 January 2019 and end date was 21 January 2020. A copy of the Statement of Terms of Employment signed by the Complainant. By letter dated 10 January 2020, the Respondent wrote to the Complainant, confirming that it was extending his contract of employment to 28 February 2020. The contract extension was due to a temporary increase in workload due to holiday cover. It was further stated that it was not possible to offer the Complainant a permanent post at that time. The Complainant was due to work until the 28 February, 2020 but he left his employment on the 14 February, 2020 and he never returned. He was paid up until the 28 February, 2020. Section 2(2)(b) of the UD Act provides that the Act shall not apply in relation to a “dismissal where the employment was under a contract of employment for a fixed term or for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making incapable of precise ascertainment) and the dismissal consisted only of the expiry of the term without its being renewed under the said contract or the cesser of the purpose and the contract is in writing, was signed by or on behalf of the employer and by the employee and provides that this Act shall not apply to a dismissal consisting only of the expiry or cesser aforesaid.” The complaint is not well founded and should be dismissed. CA 35973 – 002 The Complainant alleges that he was not notified of changes to his terms and conditions of employment when his role title changed from Supply Chain Analyst to End-to-End Supply Chain Planning Officer. The letter from the Respondent to the Complainant dated 17 January 2020 summarised the position and states that this change occurred owing to a change to the structure of the organisation. Furthermore, it should be noted that Clause 25 of the fixed-term contract allowed the Respondent to make reasonable changes to any of the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment. At no time did the Complainant object to this change. In fact, the Complainant requested an increase in his salary from €45,000 to €50,000 per annum for the remainder of the contract duration, which was approved by the Company.

...