TED1615

This is an appeal by Benitime Limited t/a Al Muretto against the decision of a Rights Commissioner given under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (the Act).

In this Determination the parties are referred to as they were at first instance. Hence Benitime Limited is referred to as the Respondent and Ioan Vlad Onit is referred to as the Complainant.

The Dispute

This Complainant contends that the Respondent failed to provide him with a statement of his terms and conditions of employment in accordance with the Act. The Respondent contends that the Complainant was furnished with such a statement shortly after he commenced his employment in 2008. The Complainant was furnished with what purported to be a revised contract of employment in 2012 but he refused to sign that document because it contained material inaccuracies.

Evidence

A document was put in evidence dated 15^thSeptember 2008 setting out the contractual terms and conditions of the Complainant’s employment. Mr Marco Valporo told the Court in evidence that he recalled handing this document to the Complainant on or about September 2008. He said that the standard practice of the Respondent was to provide employees with a statement required by the Act on the commencement of their employment.

The Complainant gave evidence in which he denied ever having received the document referred to by Mr Valporo.

Evidence was also given by Mr Livic Sprivac, who was a co-employee of the Complainant and also commenced employment with the Respondent in 2008. This witness told the Court in his sworn evidence that he was not furnished with a statement of the type required by the Act.

Conclusion

Having considered the evidence tendered in the course of the appeal the Court has concluded that the Complainant’s recollection is to be preferred over that of Mr Valporo. The Court is also satisfied that the document furnished to the Complainant in 2012 did not comply with the Act.

In these circumstances the Court must uphold these conclusions and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer.

Outcome

The Respondent’s appeal is disallowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner / Adjudication Officer awarding the Complainant compensation in the amount of €1,000 is affirmed.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
LS______________________
18 May 2016Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.