ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030809
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Gheorghe Pana | Firepro Logistics Limited |
Representatives | Marius Marosan | Conall Shaw, Denis I Finn Solicitors |
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-00041135-001 | 18/11/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/08/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
This complaint was submitted to the WRC on November 18th 2020 and, in accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, it was assigned to me by the Director General. Due to the closure of the WRC because of the Covid-19 pandemic, a hearing was delayed until August 13th 2021. I conducted a hearing on that date, in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. At the hearing, I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint.
The complainant was represented by Mr Marius Marosan and the respondent was represented by Mr Conall Shaw of Denis I Finn Solicitors. Ms Antonia Borlean attended to translate for the complainant, who is from Romania. Ms Frances Rooney, the managing director of the company, attended and gave evidence in support of the respondent’s position.
Background:
The respondent is a fire protection company and the complainant commenced work on August 2nd 2016. On his complaint form, he said that he was paid an hourly rate of €17.85. The company director, Ms Rooney, said that he was paid the general operative rate which is stipulated in the Sectoral Employment Order for the Construction Sector, Statutory Instrument 455 of 2017 (“the SEO”). As a general operative, the complainant is a Category 1 worker and the hourly rate for that grade in the SEO is €17.04. The complainant’s rate of pay is not material to the issue under consideration here. Under the heading of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, he alleges that he did not receive a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment. In October 2020, the complainant was involved in a disciplinary incident, following which he was removed from the site to which he had been assigned. He went home to Romania in November 2020 and it is the respondent’s understanding that he is unavailable for work. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant’s case is that, from the date that he started with the company in August 2016, he did not receive a statement of his terms and conditions of employment. He claims that any statement that the director alleges he signed is a forgery. Mr Marosan asked why the director who was dealing with the disciplinary incident didn’t produce a copy of the complainant’s contract at the disciplinary meeting. He also said that a copy could have been sent to him or to the WRC before now, as this complaint was submitted in November 2020. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
For the respondent, Mr Shaw said that he has a copy of the complainant’s contract of employment which was issued to him on his first day of employment with the respondent on August 2nd 2016. Mr Shaw said that two copies of the contract were produced and that both were signed by the complainant and by a representative of the company. The company’s managing director, Ms Rooney, said that it is standard practice for contracts to be issued to their employees and a copy of the complainant’s contract is on his file. |
Findings and Conclusions:
On August 17th 2021, four days after the hearing of this complaint, Mr Shaw sent a copy of the complainant’s contract of employment to the WRC. To compare the signature on this document, he also sent a copy of a document signed by the complainant on November 12th 2020. These documents were then sent to Mr Marosan for his comments. On September 1st, Mr Marosan replied and requested the original of the complainant’s contract to be sent to the WRC for me to examine his signature. Mr Shaw sent the originals to the WRC on September 14th. I have now examined the original contract which Ms Rooney said was signed by the complainant when he joined the company on August 2nd 2016. This document seems to me to be an original contract drawn up in 2016. If it had been recently developed for the purpose of defending this claim, I doubt that the errors which are evident would have remained. The contract is signed by the complainant and I can see no evidence that his signature has been forged, as he alleged. I am satisfied therefore, that this is an original contract. I am also satisfied that this document is a statement of the complainant’s terms and conditions of employment and that it is in compliance with the requirements of section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. |
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.
Based on my conclusion that the complainant was issued with a statement of his terms and conditions of employment when he started working with the respondent, I have decided that this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 24-09-21
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Statement of terms and conditions of employment |