Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Sales Assistant

Grocer

 Representatives

Represented 

Not represented 

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00009157-001

18/01/2017

On 18 January, 2017,the complainant, a Polish national submitted a complaint under the Terms of Employment( Information) Act 1994 that she had not been issued with a contract of employment during the course of her employment which ranged from 28 June 2016-8 November 2016.The case was scheduled for   hearing on 15 March 2017.

On the first day of hearing the Respondent, also a Polish national requested an adjournment and the services of an Interpreter from the WRC .On that day; he was furnished with a second copy of the Complaint in addition to a copy of the presiding Act, both in the English language. The case was reconvened for 18 May 2017 on which date there was no appearance for or on behalf of the respondent.

The complainant submitted that during the course of her employment at the Respondent shop, that she had not received a signed statement of terms and conditions in accordance with the Act .On the first day of hearing, the complainant’s representative sought a short adjournment given that his client was ill.

The complainant contended that during the course of her employment,she had asked her Manager for a statement of terms of employment, but she did not receive it. She was not aware of any other employee having a statement either .The complainant submitted a copy of her payslip dated 14 November which confirmed her weekly pay as 454.80 euro per week. She left the employment on 8 November 2016. She sought redress of compensation.

On the first day of hearing, the respondent stated that he was not on notice of the complaint and sought another appointment to secure representation and access to a Polish Interpreter. He was furnished with a second copy of the complaint and confirmed his correct address and the name of the company.A brief adjournment was granted .

On the second day of hearing, 18 May, 2017, there was no appearance for or on behalf of the respondent.

I find that this is a situation where the respondent appears to have acted in bad faith in how he approached the claim. He did not submit any reason for his non attendance on May 18 and given the consideration of his initial requests for representation and Interpretation, subsequently permitted by WRC, I was somewhat surprised to be faced by his non appearance on 18 May 2017.

I did not receive any written or oral defence of   the claim on behalf of the respondent .I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the resumed hearing to the same company address which resulted in his first time attendance on March 15, 2017.

I have carefully considered the submission made on behalf of the complainant and in the face of her undisputed evidence ,I find that the respondent did not furnish the required signed particulars of statement of employment to the complainant within two months of the commencement of her employment as provided for in Section 3(1) of the Act .

I find the complaint to be well founded.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. Section 7 of the Terms of Employment Act, 1994 sets out the options opens to me in this regard.

I order the Respondent to pay to the complainant four weeks pay 1,819.20 euro as just and equitable compensation for the breach of the Act, having regard for all the circumstances.

Written Statement of terms of employment.