FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8 (1), TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT (INFORMATION) ACTS, 1994 TO 2014 PARTIES : DFS TRADING LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MARY PAULA GUINNESS, B.L., INSTRUCTED BY EVERSHEDS SOLICITORS) - AND - WIKTOR GLOGIEWICZ (REPRESENTED BY BLAZEJ NOWAK) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no ADJ-0009849.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 19thJune 2018. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19thOctober 2018. The following is the Determination of the Court:
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Mr Wiktor Glogiewicz of an Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00009849, CA-00012904-001, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007 and 008 which found against his claims which was taken under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (the Act). The Adjudication Officer found against his claims under the Act, with one exception. The Adjudication Officer found that the contract provided failed to give the Irish address of the Company. He held that this was a technical breach and given that no detriment accrued to the Complainant from this omission, the Adjudication Officer decided that an order of compensation was not warranted. He ordered the Respondent to provide its employees in the Republic of Ireland with its Irish address.
The Court is satisfied that there is a valid appeal before the Court.
The Complainant referred his claim under the Act to the Workplace Relations Commission on 23rdJuly 2017.
For ease of reference the parties are given the same designations as they had at first instance. Hence Mr Wiktor Glogiewicz will be referred to as “the Complainant” and DFS Trading Limited will be referred to as “the Respondent”.
Summary of the Complainant’s Case
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 14thJune 2016 as a driver helper and subsequently became a HGV driver/helper. The Complainant’s employment terminated on 2ndJuly 2017. His basic annual salary was €25,419.68.
Mr Blazej Nowak on behalf of the Complainant furnished the Court with a copy of the Complainant’s contract of employment and submitted that the Respondent was in breach of the Act as the contract did not comply with the statutory provisions of the Act.
Summary of the Respondent’s Position
Ms Mary Paula Guinness, B.L., instructed by Eversheds Solicitors on behalf of the Respondent denied that the Respondent was in breach of the Act. She submitted that the contact of employment along with a letter of appointment provided to the Complainant at the commencement of his employment fully complied with the provisions of the Act. She further submitted that when the Complainant’s place of employment moved location, he was provided with a letter dated 28thFebruary 2018 confirming his new place of work, which was due to take effect from 10thApril 2017.
Ms Guinness relied on the details contained in the contract of employment together with the letter of appointment to substantiate its position that the Respondent had complied with the Act.
Findings and Conclusions of the Court
Having considered the submissions made by both parties, the Court notes that the Complainant was provided with a letter of appointment dated 13thJune 2016 which was accompanied by a contract of employment.
The Act obliges employers to provide employees with written statement of particulars of their terms of employment. The Act is derived from Directive No 91/533/EEC of 14thOctober 1991 of theCouncil of the European Communities on an Employer’s Obligation to Inform Employees of the Conditions Applicable to the Contract of Employment Relationships.
Neither the Act nor the Directive impose an obligation on employers to provide employees with a written contract of employment, but rather a written statement of the terms of employment. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that there is no obstacle in the Act which prevents those details being contained in a contract of employment and in a letter of appointment, as long as they are in writing and comply with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act.
The Court notes that the Complainant signed the contract of employment on 17thJune 2016 and returned a signed copy to the Respondent.
No specifics were put to the Court as to alleged breaches of the Act, therefore the Court cannot uphold claims which are unspecified.
Determination
The Court upholds the Decisions of the Adjudication Officer and dismisses the appeals.
The Court so Determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
9 November, 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.