ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004224
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
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-00006244-001 | 02/08/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/01/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 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).
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The Complainant was employed as a Car Cleaner from April 1st 2015 to March 3rd 2016. His claim was brought under the above Act stating that he was not advised of changes to his contract of employment. However at the Hearing he advised that while he did get a contract it had been stolen from him recently. He also stated that he was not paid 20 days holidays and 900 hours overtime. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The Respondent was not present at the Hearing.
Decision:
Section 41(4) 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.
Effectively the Complainants formally submitted case was that the Respondent was in breach of the of Section 5 of Terms of Employment Information Act 1994 by not providing the Complainant with notice in writing under Section 5 (a) of the Act within a month of the changes. The Complainant did not provide any evidence at the Hearing to show that changes to an original contract took place. While I sympathise with the Complainants loss of the original contract I cannot uphold his claim that changes took place to a contract that was not produced in evidence. Also the Complainants real case was for non payment of holiday pay and overtime, both claims that should have been taken under different Acts to the Act that the Complainant used to present his claim. It is not in my prerogative or legal power to make awards to a Complainant for losses he alleged he maintained if the claims are brought by the Complainant under inappropriate Acts. For all the above reasons I deem the complainant to be not well founded.
Dated: 20 March 2017