ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009395
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Production Operative | Auto Service Provider |
Complaint(s):
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-00012348-001 | 30/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/10/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 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).
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The claimant was employed as a Production Operative with the respondent from the 6th.Jan.2017 to the 3rd.April 2017.He submitted the respondent was in breach of the Act for failing to furnish him with written terms and conditions of employment in accordance with Section 3 of the Act.The claimant is a Lithuanian national and has very limited fluency in English – while it was acknowledged that the claimant was furnished with a contract of employment in English , it was submitted that the claimant did not know what he was signing .It was submitted that he was presented with a document to sign and was told it was no big deal. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent denied any breach of the Act and submitted a copy of the contract which was furnished to the claimant and signed by him .It was submitted that if the claimant had any issue with the contract he could have raised it while in the employment as the opportunity for translation was there given that their production manager was a Lithuanian national.In a post hearing submission it was contended that the production manager was requested to attend the office to answer any questions the claimant might have had in relation to the contract and that they both laughed/joked about it at the time. |
Decision:
Section 41 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.
I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the conflicting accounts of the parties in relation to whether or not the claimant was afforded an opportunity to have the document translated. Having considered the evidence, I find the claimant’s representative’s contention that the respondent failed to meet their obligations under the Act as the claimant could not have been aware of what he was signing given his limited fluency in English to be persuasive and accordingly I am upholding the complaint. I require the respondent to pay the claimant €300 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this decision. |
Dated: 13/03/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea