ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002656

Complaint for Resolution:  

 Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/09/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure: 

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 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.

Attendance at Hearing: 

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation: 

The complainant commenced work on January 28th 2016. He repeatedly asked for the terms of his employment in writing and gave a list of dates commencing on February 26^th and then on seven occasions throughout March when he did so. While he was assured on each occasion he raised it that these terms would be provided they were not. He had a particular objection to the frequency with which he was expected to do filing on a mezzanine floor above the office and wished to clarify whether this was part of his duties as defined in the contract or statement of Terms of Employment. On one occasion, he says he was asked to physically clean the attic area. Cleaning duties were not discussed, and certainly not agreed to before his appointment.

Information on other matters such entitlement to holidays and sick leave was not forthcoming.

After failing to secure a copy of the written terms within the time required, and given the unclear nature of his position and employment, he tendered his resignation on April 1st 2016.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The company accepts that it did not provide the complainant with a statement of his Terms of Employment as required by the Act.

In respect of the claim that excessive filing was required it stated that such filing was an intrinsic part of the work of a Sales Administrator and that filing could have been organised in such a way as to require a small number of visits to the filing area every day. The complainant at no stage raised a direct query about having to do these duties.

The company employs twenty two employees all of whom have a statement in compliance with the Act and it says that the delays in providing it to the complainant were genuinely attributable to pressure of work and annual leave.

Conclusions and Findings

Regrettably, a rather minor and eminently resolvable dispute over the complainant’s role and job content, primarily in relation to the requirement to undertake filing duties appears to have precipitated this complaint.

That said the easiest way to resolve it, and in the process to comply with the requirements of the legislation would have been to give the complainant the necessary statement including such definition of the role as was necessary to give clarity to all sides. I fully accept that the complained of duties lay well within a reasonable range of duties for such a post.

The respondent accepts that he failed to do so as required by the Act within eight weeks.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

In respect of complaint CA-00003715-001 I uphold the complaint under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and award the complainant one week’s wages in the amount of €385.62 to be paid within forty two days of the date of this decision.

Dated:   22^nd November 2016