FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8 (1), TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT (INFORMATION) ACTS, 1994 TO 2012 PARTIES : ARAN SECURITY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY HRS CONSULTANTS) - AND - RARES IACOB (REPRESENTED BY MARIUS MAROSAN) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no ADJ-00002505.
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal under Section 8(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2012. A Labour Court hearing took place on 19 May 2017. The following is the Court's Determination:-
DETERMINATION:
This is the Complainant’s (Rares Iacob) appeal from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00002505) dated 16 November 2016. The Complainant did not attend before the Adjudication Officer. He submits he did not receive notification of the hearing from the Workplace Relations Commission. The Adjudication Officer found the complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (“the Act”) failed for want of prosecution. The Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 29 November 2016. The Court heard the appeal on 19 May 2017, along with a number of other appeals referred by the Complainant.
The Complaint was employed by Aran Security Limited (“the Respondent”) as a security guard from 21 February 2015 until his employment was terminated on 2March 2016 as per the the date of cessation stated on the P45 issued to the Complainant.
The Complainant submits that he received copies of a number of policies and other HR documents when he joined the Respondent company in February 2015 but that he did not receive a written contract of employment or statement of terms and conditions of employment then or at all during the course of his employment. He told the Court that he requested a statement of his terms and conditions from Mr Barry Kinsella, the Respondent’s Operations Manager, by text on 27 February 2016. On that same occasion, the Complainant also requested a P60 and a P45. He received the latter two documents but did not receive a copy of any statement of terms and conditions.
The Respondent states the following in its written submission to the Court:
“We believe [the Complainant] deliberately decided not to sign his contract during the initial paperwork stage of his pre-employment. He signed every other document (11 of them) but not his contract. Should our operations people not notice this non signature (sic), as they did not, he would be free at a later stage (after his employment with the company) to complain he never saw his contract and indeed he was never given one. And by doing so give himself the prospect or possibility of a lump sum payment at some time in the future.”
Decision
The Respondent did not submit any evidence that it did, in fact, give the Complainant a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment within two months of the commencement of his service, as required by the Act. Furthermore, the Court finds the Respondent’s suggestion that the Complainant contrived to bring about a situation whereby he could pursue a complaint under the Act by not signing such a statement along with the other HR documents given to him during induction, extremely far-fetched and not credible. Accordingly, the Court awards the Complainant the equivalent of four weeks’ pay in compensation under the Act. This is not by way of compensation for loss of earnings and is, therefore, not taxable.
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CR______________________
7 July, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.