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-00008982-002

6^th January 2017

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 18^th   July 2016 to 19^th November 2016 and her weekly rate of pay was   €341.00c.  

The Complainant was submitting that the Respondent had not   provided her with a written statement of her terms and conditions of   employment within the time limits laid down in the 1994 Act for the provision   of such statements and that the Respondent was denying the complaint.

The Complainant said that she commenced employment with   the Respondent on 18^th July 2016, but she said that she did not   receive a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment until 1^st   November 2016 (i.e. the document presented by the Respondent to the Hearing)   and she said that this was outside the 2 month time limit contained in   Section 3 of the 1994 Act for the provision of such statements.   The Complainant pointed out that this   document was presented to her and signed by both parties just 7 days before   she was informed by the Respondent that her employment was being terminated.   She further said that she had never been   provided with a copy of the Employee Handbook submitted to the Hearing.

The Complainant sought redress in the form of compensation   as provided for in Section 7(1) of the 1994 Act.

The Respondent was denying the complaint made by the   Complainant.

The Respondent said that within one month of the start of   her employment the Complainant was issued with 2 copies of her written   contract of employment and the Employee Handbook and she was asked to take   the documents away and read them, to then sign them, retain one and return   one.     The Respondent said that   however the Complainant did not return the documents and then they approached   her with further copies on 1^st November 2016, on that occasion the   Complainant signed them there and then and returned one copy to them.

One of the Respondent’s Representatives said that he had   presented the documents to the Complainant within one month of the   commencement of her employment (but the Complainant denied this)   The Respondent denied that there was any   connection between the presentation of the terms of conditions to the   Complainant and the termination of her employment.

I have carefully considered the evidence and the   submissions of both parties and I have concluded as follows.

I note that there was conflict between the evidence of the   parties in relation to whether or not the Complainant was presented with a   written copy of the documents submitted to the hearing during her first month   of her employment: they say she was and she says she was not: that cannot be   reconciled; accordingly I have had to make my decision on that on the balance   of probabilities.

The Respondent states that they provided all employees   with copies of the documents in relation to their terms and conditions of   employment within one month of the commencement of their employment.   They stated that they were most assiduous   about this and ensuring that such were signed for and that all was in order   in that respect.   However I note that   based on the Respondent’s own evidence they did not follow up with this   Employee for a further 4 months and just one week before the Respondent   terminated her employment.   I do not   accept that this is neither credible nor plausible, especially as they state   they were diligent and assiduous about such matters.  

I have concluded on the balance of probabilities that the   Complainant’s evidence in this respect is more credible and it is accepted by   me.   Accordingly I find and conclude   that the Complainant did not receive the written statements of her terms and   conditions until 1^st November 2016 and as this is (well) outside   the 2 month time limit contained in Section 3 of the Terms and Employment (Information)   Act 1994 accordingly I must find and conclude that that the complaint under   Section 7 of the 1994 Act is well founded and is upheld.