FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 8 (1), TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT (INFORMATION) ACTS, 1994 TO 2012 PARTIES : OCCIPITAL LIMITED - AND - MAREK MOZIO DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation No R-151330-TE-14/JW
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker appealed the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 8(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2012. A Labour Court hearing took place on 18th February, 2016. The following is the Determination of the Court:
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Marek Mozio (hereafter the Complainant) against the recommendation of a Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer in his claim against Occipital Limited (hereafter the Respondent) under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (the Act) .
Background
The Complainant is employed by the Respondent as a warehouse operative. He commenced employment on or about 5thOctober 2009. He claimed that the Respondent contravened s. 3 of the Act in two respects. Firstly, he claimed that he was not provided with a statement of the type required by s.3 of the Act within a period of two months from the commencement of his employment, as required by subsection (1) of that section. Secondly, he claims that a statement with which he was provided in 2014 did not accurately reflect the terms and conditions under which he was actually employed.
The Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer found that the Respondent had contravened s.3(1) by failing to provide the Complainant with the statement required by the Act within the time specified. He recommended that the Respondent pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €1,896.
In relation to the complaint concerning the statement furnished to the Complainant in 2014, the Rights Commissioner /Adjudication Officer recommended that the parties enter into discussions for the purpose of reaching agreement on the issues giving rise to the complaint.
The Appeal
The compensation recommended by the Rights Commissioner /Adjudication Officer was paid to the Complainant and he accepted that payment. He told the Court that his appeal was in relation to the second part of the recommendation, namely, that the parties have discussions on his complaint concerning the accuracy of the 2014 statement.
Despite being pressed by members of the Court to particularise the nature of the inaccuracies in the statement issued to his in 2014 he was unable to do so.
Disposal
No evidence was placed before the Court upon which it could be held that the statement furnished to the Complainant in 2014 did not comply with the Act. Consequently, in accordance with s.7(2)(a) of the Act the Court must declare the complaint in relation to that statement is not well-founded.
The recommendation of the Rights Commissioner /Adjudication Officer is varied in terms of this Determination.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th February 2016______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.