The Complainant and the Complainant’s husband worked for the Respondent prior to establishing their own hotel in or around 2010. Upon the winding up of the Complainant’s own hotel business, the Complainant’s husband was offered work with the Respondent. At the request of the Complainant’s husband, the Complainant was offered work. As there had previously been a good working relationship between the Complainant and Respondent, the Respondent offered the Complainant work as a senior member of the waiting staff. The Complainant declined the standard statement of main terms ordinarily offered to employees. The Complainant stated her preference for setting out her own terms in concert with her husband. In light of the prior professional relationship between Complainant and Respondent and the Complainant’s extensive knowledge and experience as an employer, the Respondent agreed to same. In particular, the Complainant specified that she would work Wednesday to Sunday only as this would coincide with the Complainant’s husband’s working week. The Complainant was paid a rate of €15.00 per hour. As the Complainant worked a highly regular working week it was understood by both Complainant and Respondent that the rate of pay for the Complainant was inclusive of statutory entitlement, including Sunday Premium. The Complainant states, “I was not aware that I was entitled to reasonable compensation for Sunday work until I attended the Citizens Information Centre upon termination of my employment.” This is unlikely, given the Complainant’s many years working in the hotel industry and as the owner and operator of her own hotel. The Complainant was not provided with a statement in writing compliant with s.3 Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. In Philmic Ltd. t/a Premier Linen Services v. Petraitis (TED1616) the Labour Court held: The Court finds that the Respondent was in breach of the Act at Section 3(g) and 3(ga). No submission has been made to the court to the effect that the appellant suffered any detriment as a result of these breached. The Court measures the compensation amount which is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances of this case as being nil. The Complainant in Philmic appealed to the High Court where it was held: The Labour Court heard all the evidence from the Appellant and the Respondent. Its finding was to uphold the claim of the Respondent in the more substantial matters that it had provided substantial information to the appellant by way of a contract of employment which the appellant signed and an additional Employee Handbook which was available to him and which he acknowledged having received and read. The compensation to be awarded to the Appellant was a matter for the Labour Court. The High Court decision in Philmic is authority for the proposition that the complainant can be awarded zero compensation notwithstanding a finding that there was a breach of the 1994 Act. In Irish Water v. Hall (TED161) it was held by the Labour Court that: No submission has been made to the Court to the effect that the Appellant suffered any detriment as a result of these breaches. The Court measures the compensation amount which is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances as being nil. It is for the Complainant to establish what, if any, harm resulted to the Complainant as a result of the failure of the Respondent to provide a statement in writing compliant with s.3 1994 Act. The Claimant worked a five day week from Wednesday to Sunday. It was agreed between the Claimant and Respondent that this was inclusive of all statutory entitlements, including Sunday Premium | 
