ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016713
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An IT worker. | An IT retail store. |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00021671-001 | 07/09/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/11/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David Mullis
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant worked for the Respondent from 03/09/2017 until 16/04/2018. He worked on repair and sales of IT equipment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant says that he worked for the Respondent from 03/09/2017 until the 16/04/2018 repairing and selling IT equipment. He commenced working with one named organisation on 03/09/2017, which was closed down by the Respondent for no communicated reason, in early 2018. He says he immediately transferred to the current named company at that time. The company directors were the same for both companies. He says that the terms of employment issued to him verbally were not being implemented, under a number of headings, including pay and bonuses and he resigned from his position on 16/04/2018. He said that from the commencement of his employment he had asked repeatedly for written confirmation of his terms and conditions of employment, but that they were not forthcoming from the Respondent. He says that after he had decided to leave the company in frustration at the non-implementation of the verbal undertakings, the Respondent had come forward with a proposed written contract, but that he had not done so for the first almost 12 months of his employment. He says that he is seeking compensation for that failure on the part of the Respondent. He says that he earned €400 per week. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent agreed, at the hearing, with the employment dates as given by the Complainant. He confirmed the transfer from one entity to the other in terms of company name. He says that the company had recently given a written Contract of Employment to the Complainant and that because of this the Complainant’s claim must fail. He also says that the Complainant left work each day some 30 minutes prior to his designated finishing time and that he wished to take this into account. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I find that if there was confusion, as was evident at the hearing, about the correct rate of pay, the promise of bonuses, the issue of the number of hours to be worked and the finishing time, it was the result of there being no written Contract of Employment to refer to, as is required in the Act. None was produced by the Respondent in evidence. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The Terms of the Employment(Information) Act, 1994 require that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions in the Act.
I find for the Complainant and award him 4 week’s pay at the rate of €400 per week, being the redress provision in the Act for failure, by the Respondent, to provide written terms of employment to the Complainant within a month of his commencing employment with the Respondent. |
Dated: 20-02-2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David Mullis
Key Words:
|