ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00017778
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A cleaner | A cleaning company |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint 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-00022957-001 | 31/10/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/01/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On 31 October 2018, the complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on 4 January 2019. 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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant outlined that her usual weekly pay was €500. She works 40 to 42 hours a week. She was not paid more for additional hours but was paid less if she worked fewer hours. She asked for a contract and after threatening to take a complaint to the WRC, she was sent a contract, which she had not seen before. She started working for the respondent on 29 July 2013 and was provided the contract in October 2018. She continued to work for the respondent. The complainant said that the contract was not signed. The respondent applied a pay cap of €500 so that she was not paid for additional hours. She was paid €12 per hour if she worked fewer hours. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent outlined that it purchased the company in the summer of 2018 and maintained the complainant’s working conditions. They changed her location of work at her request. There were two deductions in September and November 2018 and the first was a mistake. The second related to the complainant exhausting her entitlement to sick pay. The contract the respondent was given contradicts the complainant’s actual terms and conditions, i.e. her pay of €500 a week. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant’s employment commenced on 29 July 2013. The document dated May 2017 provided by the predecessor to the respondent does not reflect the facts of the complainant’s employment. It, for example, states that her continuous employment commenced in 2001. This inaccuracy would have been picked up when the document was given to the complainant, had this occurred. I, therefore, find as fact that no statement was provided to the complainant prior to the document recently circulated. This is a subsisting breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. The claim is, therefore, well founded. I appreciate that the witness for the respondent outlined that it had taken over as the complainant’s employer in the summer of 2018. They inherited the situation of the complainant not having a contract and circulated one to her when asked. In assessing redress, I note that the obligation to provide the statement required in section 3 is one arising from EU law. I note that the statement should set out important information about an employee’s employment. I award redress of €900 in this case. |
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.
CA-00022957-001 I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €900. |
Dated: 30th April 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Terms of Employment (Information) Act / section 3 |