ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025453
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Event steward | Event Management and Security Service |
Representatives | Self- represented | Baily Homan Smyth McVeigh. Mr Anthony Quinn, B.L. |
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-00032316-005 | 19/11/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/01/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
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 claims that the respondent failed to provide him with Terms of Employment as set out in section 3 of the Act of 1994, as amended. He commenced employment with the respondent on 29th of July 2019. He left on the 31st of October 2019. His monthly gross salary was €1025.66. He weekly hours varied but did not fall below 20 hours per week. He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 9 November 2019. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant advised that he had an interview on the 19 July and an induction session on 25 July. He contended that the respondent failed to provide him with his Terms of Employment within the 2-month period following the commencement of his employment. He should have been given a hard copy upon the commencement of his employment. He received a copy of the contract on 26 July, but it was not signed by the respondent as required by section 3 (4) of the Act of 1994. He received a copy with the respondent’s signature in the third month of his employment. He did not receive the date of commencement of his employment in the contract contrary to section 3 (e), nor was he notified of his notice entitlements. He had to request his terms on several occasions from the respondent. He asks that his complaint is upheld. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent operates an event management and crowd control service. The complainant joined the company in July 2019. The respondent presented overheads used in a presentation on terms and conditions of employment on 25 July to those being inducted into the company and including the complainant. One of the slides offered two options and stated “Please take a photo of your contract or request a photocopy of your contract., The Operations Director gave evidence and advised that a copy of the contract was signed on the day of the Induction training on the 25 July. The Operations Director informed the complainant that he could either take a hard copy or make a photocopy of the contract. He could not remember which option the complainant had chosen. The Operations Director stated that he did not sign off on the complainant’s contract but that it became operable at the induction session. The complainant did event stewarding at a major sporting event a few days after the Induction. He was set up on the pay roll on 29 July. The complainant resigned on 31 October. The respondent asks that the complaint should be rejected. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The relevant Law. Section 3.— (1) of the Act of 1994 states “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 following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment”. The only copy of the contract available to the hearing was a copy furnished by the complainant which showed in respect of the particulars required by section 3(1) of the Act, A contract devoid of the respondent’s signature as required by section 3(4), A contract that did not identify the date of commencement of the contract as required by section 3(1)(e) though it is accepted that the complainant did commence his employment on the 27 June, A contract that omits the period of notice to which an employee is entitled in accordance with section 3(1)(i). Based on the evidence I find that the complaint is well founded. Section 7 of the Act provides, inter alia, for compensation not exceeding 4 weeks remuneration. I require the respondent to pay the complainant two weeks wages amounting to the sum of €473 which I deem to be an amount that is just and equitable in compensation for the breach. |
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.
I find the complaint to be well founded. I require the respondent to pay the complainant two weeks wages which amounts to the sum of €473 in compensation for the breach. |
Dated: 17th June 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Section 3 of the Act of 1994. |