ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007216

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/06/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Background:

The Complainant has been employed as a casual staff member as a security steward for the Respondent since 21 September 2008.The Complainant attended training in 2008 and was promoted to supervisor in 2011.The Complainant only worked for matches and concerts so there was only 12 – 14 events per year. The Complainant worked in different areas in the Respondents client premises. The Respondent acts as a sub-contractor for their client in this case. The last event the Complainant worked was on the 14 November 2015.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

• Following his last shift the Complainant was contacted regarding an email that he had been sent and was asked to a meeting about it.

• The email was sent to the Complainant on the 24 November 2015 stating they didn’t need him for that event and asked to meet him about it.

• In the written correspondence it stated that he could have someone attend the meeting with him. Following this he emailed back asking what the e mail was about.

• The Respondent said on the phone that the meeting was not disciplinary but it was an explanatory meeting. This was communicated by e mail on the 27 November 2015 confirming what had been said on the call.

• The Complainant didn’t want to attend and stated he was referring the matter to a third party i.e. his SIPTU rep.

• The Complainant said he had a missed call from the Respondents client company on the 19th of November 2015 and other colleagues had received a call from them looking for info about an event even though they weren’t his employers.

• On the 23 December 2015, the Complainant received a letter from the Respondents HR department saying that they look forward to having him work events in 2016.

• The last invite the Complainant received from the Respondent was on the 14November 2015 to attend work.

• The Complainant informed the Adjudicator that he received a one page copy of his contract and signed it on the 25 September 2008.

• The Complainant told us that his contract does not outline his place of work in it and it is not signed by the company.

• In January 2016 he was invited to work an event at a different client premises. The Complainant spoke to the Respondent and explained he couldn’t attend as his friend was sick.

• On the 31March 2016, he got a further requirement to attend an event at the same client premises. The Complainant didn’t respond to this.

• In April 2016 he got an e mail from his employer saying that the Department of Social Protection would not be signed for anyone who refused to work.

• On the following Tuesday the 12 April the Complainant presented to get his Department of Social protection form signed from his direct employer and he was told to take it up with HR.

• The Complainant emailed the HR Manager and called her regarding the matter. She said she would get in touch with the Complainants direct employer and sort it out.

• After the Complainant had been in touch with HR on a number of occasions, he eventually decided to get in touch with the General Manager.

• On Monday 25 April the General Manager contacted him and he said HR was handling the matter. He has no contact with the Respondent since.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

• The Respondent stated that the Complainant did receive a contract. The Respondent stated that the contract is not signed by the Company. The Respondent stated that this has never been raised as an issue since the Complainant started with the Company. The Respondent stated that there is no address of the Company on the contract but that it was on the application form which is on the other side of the contract. The Respondent confirmed that the hours are not stated in the contract either and that there are not different rates outlined for different events. Some of the events he was asked to attend were high profile weddings and the rate of pay was different.

• It was requested that the Complainant be moved from the client premises where he was usually based and so they had to move him to another location. He was offered three other locations but refused this work. The Respondent agreed that the pay was different as it was associated with other locations outside of the usual premises that he works in. The client had asked the Respondent to remove the Complainant from the premises so they followed this instruction.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Respondent has not complied with the Section 3 of the Terms of Employment Act 1994. The following were not on the contract as they should have been:

• The full names of the employer and the employee.

• The address of the employer in the state.

• The place of work – this was not made clear and is now being disputed.

• The date of commencement of the employees contract of employment.

• The rate or method of the calculation of the employee’s remuneration - the differing rates based on the different events are not stated.

• Any terms and conditions relating to the hours of work – it does not include an accurate reference of the hours worked.

• Any terms or conditions related to paid leave.

• Incapacity for work due to sickness or injury and paid sick leave – no reference to sick pay.

Considering the above the Adjudicator finds the employee to have been disadvantaged as a result based on the reasons outlined as there is currently a dispute regarding the place of work and pay rates. This would be clearer if the requirements were included in the contract so that it met the legal requirements of the legislation.

Decision:

Section 41 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.

As the Complainant has not received a contract that meets requirements of Section 3 of the Terms of Employment Act 1994, he has been disadvantaged as a result based on the reasons outlined. Therefore the Adjudicator awards €186.40 (which equates to four weeks wages) in compensation.

Dated:   10^th July 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery

Key Words: