TED1913

This is an appeal by Vadim Capatina against the decision of an Adjudication Officer in his complaints against his former employer, St. Margaret’s Country Club Limited trading as St Margaret’s Golf and Country Club. The complaints were made pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (the Act).

In line with the normal practice of the Court, the parties are referred to in this Determination as they were at first instance. Hence, Vadim Capatina is referred to as the Complainant and St. Margaret’s Country Club Limited is referred to as the Respondent.

Complainant’s case

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent between 5th May 2015 and 18^thOctober 2017 when his employment terminated. He contends that the although the Respondent provided him with a statement containing particulars of the principal terms of his contract of employment as is required by s.3 of the Act the statement did not contain the provisions relating to minimum wage as required by s3 (g) and (ga). It was also the Complainant’s submission that the incorrect Company name was in the Staff Handbook. According to the Complainant’s contract, his terms and conditions were set out in the Company Handbook. It is his submission that as the name in the Handbook was incorrect there was no Company Handbook.

Respondent’s case

The Respondent submitted to the Court that it had provided the Complainant with a contract and a copy of the Staff Handbook which set out all the terms and conditions attached to the employment. The Complainant was on a salary of €35,000 a year which breaks down to €16.83 per hour which far exceeded the minimum wage at that time. The original version of the Handbook supplied to the Complainant had the correct company name, St Margaret’s Country Club Limited. It is not disputed that the updated version stated St Margaret’s Golf and Country Club but it was just an updated version of the earlier Handbook. It is the Respondent’s submission that at all material times the Complainant had the relevant information available to him.

Discussion

It is not disputed that he Complainant in this case received a statement of his terms and conditions. The Court in this case is being asked to find that the alleged errors and omissions outlined above constitute a breach of the Act and therefore the Complainant should be compensated in accordance with section (7) (2) of the Act.

The Court determines that there has been a minor technical breach of the Act. However, having carefully considered the submissions of both parties, the Court determines that no compensation is warranted. The Decision of the Adjudication is set aside.

The Court so Determines.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Louise O'Donnell
MK______________________
12 July 2019Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.