TED183

Background

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent between 24th May 2016 and 22 January 2017 when he left the employment. He contends that the Respondent failed to provide him with a statement containing particulars of the principal terms of his contract as is required by s.3 of the Act.

The substance of his claim is that while he was furnished with a statement, it did not contain particulars in respect to the following matters:-

The correct name of the employer. The statement provided indicated the employer was Noel Recruitment Ireland Limited whereas the correct name is Noel Recruitment (Ireland)Limited.

No terms and conditions as to hours of work other than that the employee will be notified a week in advance were set out.

The statement provides that the leave year is to run in tandem with the calendar year whereas the Organisation of Working Time Act 1977 provides that a leave year runs from 1^stApril to 31^stMarch.

The provisions of section 3(g) and (ga) were not set out.

He was not advised of the provisions of section 23 of the Act.

Position of the parties.

The Complainant

The Complainant’s representative told the Court that at the commencement of his contract he was furnished with a statement which purported to particularise the terms of his contract of employment. He stated that this statement did not refer to the matters referred to above and therefore there was a breach of the Act. While the Complainant did not suffer any loss as a result of the alleged breaches he is seeking compensation for the breach.

The Respondent.

The Respondent’s position is that they have complied with the requirement’s set out in the Act. In relation to each of the specifics set out above they believe sufficient information was provided to the Complainant. In relation to the company name this was a minor “typo” and the Complainant has was not disadvantaged in any manner as a result of it.

Discussion

The central fact in issue in this case is whether or not the Complainant was furnished with a statement which contained the particulars referred to at s.3 of the Act. The Complainant’s representative told the Court that the Complainant did not receive such a statement in the manner specified by the Act. The Respondent took issue with this and argued that while the contract may not have specifically referenced the rate or method of calculation of the employee’s remuneration and the pay reference period for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000. The Complainant was advised of his hourly rate and that he would be paid weekly. He was also provided with weekly payslips. In relation to the other issues raised the Respondent disputes that they did not comply with the Act.

Decision

It is clear to the Court that the failure to provide the information in the manner set out in 3(g) and (ga) of the Act was a breach of s3 of the Act. The Court notes the Respondents position that the Complainant suffered no detriment as a result of the breach and this was not disputed by the Complainant’s representative. The Complainant has left the employment therefore there is no value to the Court directing the respondent to issue an amended statement. In all the circumstances of this case the Court awards compensation of one week’s gross pay.

Determination

For the reasons set out above the appeal succeeds. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is set aside.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Louise O'Donnell
29 January 2018______________________
MNDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.