FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8 (1), TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT (INFORMATION) ACTS, 1994 TO 2012 PARTIES : MEDFIT WELLNESS LIMITED - AND - RUTH MURPHY (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00004633 CA-00006506-001.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Employee appealed the Decisions of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 5th May 2017. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th July 2017. The following is the Determination of the Court:
DETERMINATION:
Background to the Appeal
This is Ruth Murphy’s (“the Complainant”) appeal from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00004633, dated 24 April 2017) under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (“the Act”). The Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 5 May 2017. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 11 July 2017 in conjunction with the Complainant’s appeal under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, which appeal is the subject of a separate determination (WTC/17/30).
The Complainant was employed by Medfit Wellness Limited (“the Respondent”) as a receptionist from 16 November 2015 until her employment ended on 9 July 2016. She was paid a monthly salary of €2,166.67. At first instance, the Adjudication Officer upheld her claim that her employer had failed to issue her with a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment within two months of the commencement of her employment and awarded compensation of €500.00.
Complainant’s Submission
Mr Grogan, for the Complainant, submits that the Respondent’s failure to provide the Complainant with a written statement of her terms and conditions as required by the Act amounts to a breach by it of what he terms “an important right” to which the Complainant was entitled. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Adjudication Officer at first instance “could not be regarded as reasonable applying [von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen- Case 14/83-” and is not sufficiently large as to have a dissuasive effect on the Respondent in the future.
Respondent’s Submission
The Respondent concedes that it failed to issue the Complainant a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment in accordance with the 1994 Act due to an administrative oversight. However, it submits that the compensation awarded by the Adjudication Officer was appropriate in all the circumstances and that the Court should affirm that award.
Discussion & Decision
The obligation imposed by the 1994 Act on an employer to provide each employee with a written statement of terms and conditions is not an onerous or burdensome obligation, regardless of the extent of the administrative resources available to any particular employer. In fact, for many years there has been an official template made available to employers (originally provided by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and more recently by the Workplace Relations Commission) to assist them in fulfilling this requirement of the 1994 Act.
Having regard to the Parties’ submissions and the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Court is of the view that the appropriate level of compensation payable to the Complainant in this case is €750.00. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
LS______________________
13 July 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.