FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 8 (1), TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT (INFORMATION) ACTS, 1994 TO 2012 PARTIES : NURENDALE T/A PANDA WASTE - AND - ROBERT BURKE (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal Of Rights Commissioner/Adjudication Officer Decision No R-147067-TE-14/JW.
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal by Robert Burke under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. It is also a cross-appeal by Nurendale t/a Panda Waste. A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 21st of March 2016. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Robert Burke (hereafter the Complainant) against the decision of a Rights Commissioner /Adjudication Officer in his claim that his former employer, Nurendale t/a Panda Waste (hereafter the Respondent), failed to provide him with a statement containing the particulars of his contract of employment, contrary to s.3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (the Act). There is also a cross-appeal by the Respondent.
The Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was well founded and awarded the Complainant compensation in the amount of €800.
In his appeal the Complainant takes issue only with the quantum of compensation awarded. In its cross appeal the Respondent takes issue with the finding of liability and with the amount of compensation awarded.
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a truck driver from May 2007 until 21stJuly 2014.
The Issue
The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not provide him with a statement containing the particulars of his contract of employment as is required by s.3 of the Act. The Respondent contends that the Complainant was provided with such a statement.
Evidence
The Complainant gave evidence in which he told the Court that he had not received a statement in accordance with s.3 of the Act.
Evidence was given on behalf of the Respondent by Mr Chris Noonan who is Commercial Operations Manager with the Respondent. It was Mr Noonan’s evidence that the normal custom and practice within the employment to provide newly recruited employees, on induction, with various documents, including a company handbook and their contract of employment. A document was put in evidence bearing the Complainant’s signature and dated 28thMay 2007, which is headed “Acknowledgement of all handbook guidelines and specifications” and “Acknowledgement of Receipt of Avoidance of Electrical Hazards when Working Near Overhead Electrical Lines” Mr Noonan told the Court that he believed that the Complainant would have received a copy of his contract of employment in conjunction with these documents, as that is the normal practice of the Respondent.
Mr Noonan was employed in another section of the Respondents business at the material time.
The Complainant acknowledged that the document put in evidence bore his signature. He was, however, certain that he did not receive a contract of employment at that time or at any other time.
Conclusion
The Court is satisfied that, as a matter of probability, the Complainant did not receive a statement in accordance with s.3 of the Act. Accordingly he is entitled to succeed.
The Court awards the Complainant compensation in the amount of €1,000 for this contravention.
The Complainant’s appeal is allowed in part and the Respondent’s cross appeal is disallowed.
The decision of the Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th March 2016______________________
JKChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.