TED1629

As is the normal practice for this Court, Ms McCabe is referred to in the within determination as the Complainant and her former employer, Castle Leslie, is referred to as the Respondent.

This is the Complainant’s appeal from a decision of an Adjudication Officer under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (“the 1994 Act”) and from a recommendation given by the same Adjudication Officer under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (“the 1969 Act”). Both the decision and recommendation are dated 17 June 2016. The Complainant’s Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 20 July 2016. The Complainant succeeded in both matters at first instance and was awarded total compensation of €800.00. She has appealed in relation to the quantum only of the awards made by the Adjudication Officer.

Employment History

The Complainant was employed on a casual, ‘as needs’, basis as a Massage Therapist in the Respondent’s spa facility between February and December 2014. She worked in the course of 34 out 42 weeks in that period and was paid at the rate of €8.65 per hour. She worked an average of 13.5 hours per week.

Complaints

1994 Act: The Complainant’s case is that the Respondent failed to issue her with a statement of terms and conditions of employment within two months of her commencement date. The Respondent accepts this to be the case and by way of explanation refers to the fact that the Complainant was originally taken on by way of a work placement from Institute of Technology Dundalk and was thereafter retained on a casual basis. This resulted in an oversight on its part in relation to its obligations under the 1994 Act. The Adjudication Officer awarded the Complainant €400.00 for the breach of the 1994 Act. The Court determines this complaint is well-founded and increases the compensation in respect of it to €500.00. The Court so determines.

1969 Act: The Complainant referred three issues to the Workplace Relations Commission under this Act: (a) that she had been unfairly dismissed in December 2014; (b) there was a period in September 2014 when she was available for and willing to work but was not given any work; and (c) the Respondent had not hand-scanned her in a timely fashion such that she could not avail herself of automated access to her place work unlike her colleagues. The Adjudication officer found that complaint (a) was not well-founded but complaints (b) and (c) were well-founded. She awarded the Complainant €300.00 in respect of complaint (b) and €100.00 in respect of complaint (c).

Having considered the parties submissions, the Court determines complaints (b) and (c) to be well-founded and increases the compensation in respect of complaint (c) to €200.00. For the avoidance of doubt, the award made by the Adjudication Officer in respect of complaint (b) is unaltered. The total compensation payable to the Complainant is therefore €1,000.00.

The awards of the Adjudication Officer are varied and/or confirmed accordingly.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Alan Haugh
LS______________________
30 September 2016Deputy Chairman



NOTE

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