ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00014140
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Team Leader | Traffic Management Co. |
Representatives | Kevin O`Gorman, Kevin O`Gorman Solicitors | Richard Grogan, Richard Grogan & Associates |
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-00018488-001 | 13/04/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/09/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerard McMahon
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015,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 commenced work with the respondent in Sept. 2006. Having mislaid his contract, he requested another (e.g. on Feb. 19, 2018), but alleges that he was not furnished with one. Accordingly, he claims that the respondent is in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced work with the respondent in Sept. 2006. Having mislaid his contract, he requested another (e.g. on Feb. 19, 2018) but alleges that he was not furnished with one. Accordingly, he claims that the respondent is in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. As a consequence, he alleges that he suffered loss as a result of lack of information about start/finish times, rest times, pay rates, overtime, bonus payments. The respondent’s alleged failure also impeded the claimant’s mortgage and business funding bank applications. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The complainant commenced work with the respondent in Sept. 2006. Evidence was submitted at hearing serving to confirm that the claimant was furnished with a contract (duly signed off) in mid-2007. However, the respondent acknowledges that there were 3 defects in the contract (i.e. in respect of the annual leave year, the minimum wage statement and the pay reference period). The respondent is currently putting in place new contracts that will be fully compliant with Sec. 3 of the relevant enactment. The respondent offered to pay the claimant the equivalent of one week’s wages (€644) in compensation for the defects. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 the respondent must provide his/her employees with a written statement of the particulars of an employee’s terms of employment within two months of commencement (i.e. Nov. 2006). However, this did not materialise until mid-2007. The respondent acknowledged that there were deficiencies in the contract issued and offered compensation in respect of same. Having mislaid the contract, the claimant (unsuccessfully) sought a copy thereof. The failure to furnish same gave rise to problems for the claimant. |
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.
The complaint is well founded and I consider it just and equitable in the circumstances to award a payment of €1,610 to the claimant (i.e. 2.5 weeks’ wages). |
Dated: 13th May 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerard McMahon
Key Words:
Contract Information |