ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00015264
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Sbop Assistant | A Donut Shop |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00019802-001 | 15/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00019802-003 | 15/06/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/11/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The complainant worked for the respondent and received no minimum notice nor terms and conditions of employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00019802-001
The complainant started working on 20 October 2017 earning €350 per week. Her employment ceased on 26th March 2018 following a text from the respondent that that the shop would not be reopening. She did not receive her minimum notice which she was entitled to after 13 weeks working. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00019802-001
The respondent did not attend. I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the Respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing. This letter was returned. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00019802-001
The complainant was advised by text message that the shop would not reopen. She was dismissed without the respondent adhering to its obligations under the legislation which requires “(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be— (a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week, The respondent did not attend the hearing. I find that the complaint is well-founded. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00019802-003
The complainant started working on 20 October 2017 earning €350 per week. Her employment ceased on 26th March 2018 following a text from the respondent that that the shop would not be reopening. She did not any terms and conditions of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00019802-003
The respondent did not attend. I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the Respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing. This letter was returned. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00019802-003
Section 3 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 states that an “employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee's employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the … terms of the employee's employment.” The respondent did not attend. I must prefer the evidence of the complainant that the respondent has not met their obligations in providing the complainant with his terms and conditions of employment. I uphold the complaint. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00019802-001 I find that the complaint is well-foundedandI direct that the Respondent pay the Complainant one weeks pay, namely €350 gross. CA-00019802-003 I find that the complaint is well-foundedandI direct that the Respondent pay the Complainant €350 gross. |
Dated: January 23rd 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Minimum notice, terms and conditions of employment |