ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030187
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Adam Biro | Outbrain Enterprises Ltd |
Representatives | Renata Bencsik | Not represented |
Complaints:
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-00040232-001 | 04/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00040232-002 | 04/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 | CA-00040232-003 | 04/10/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/02/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
These complaints were submitted to the WRC on October 4th 2020 and, in accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, they were assigned to me by the Director General. Due to restrictions at the WRC because of the Covid-19 pandemic, a hearing was delayed until February 18th 2022. I conducted a remote 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.
The complainant was represented by a friend, Ms Renata Bencsik, a freelance HR consultant. No one attended for the respondent. On the morning of the hearing, we received correspondence from a legal firm, C Pilyugin & Co. LLC, based in Cyprus, informing us that the person named as a company director on the e-complaint form has died and an adjournment was requested. I have decided not to grant an adjournment because Outbrain Enterprises Limited is shown on the register of the Companies Registration Office as having applied for voluntary strike-off on December 29th 2021. I am concerned that the company may be struck off before a hearing can be re-scheduled. Also, the matters complained of are not complicated, being associated with basic employment rights, and it would have been of little inconvenience for the legal representatives to attend the remote hearing.
At the hearing, I gave Mr Biro an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaints. In advance of giving his evidence, he solemnly affirmed his intention to tell the truth.
While the parties are named in this decision, I will refer to Mr Biro as “the complainant” and to Outbrain Enterprises Limited as “the respondent.”
Background:
Outbrain is a public company with headquarters in New York, employing around 1,000 people. The complainant is an IT professional and he joined the company’s Dublin office on December 2nd 2019. He worked as a PHP developer, building web pages for clients. At the hearing, he explained that “PHP” is a programming language. His annual salary was €49,800. On June 18th 2020, the complainant received an email from the director who is now deceased, informing him that his employment would be terminated on June 30th. He complains that his contract provides that he is entitled to 30 days’ notice. He also complains that the statement of his terms and conditions of employment fails to state how many hours of work he is required to work weekly and daily. Under the heading of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000, he complains that he was not consulted about his dismissal due to redundancy. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-40232-001: Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 On behalf of the complainant, Ms Bencsik said that his statement of his terms and conditions of employment, which was signed by him and his director on December 2nd 2019, fails to state his daily and weekly working hours. CA-40232-002: Complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 Ms Bencsik said that the complainant’s contract of employment provides that he is entitled to 30 days’ notice of the termination of his employment. The complainant sent copies of email correspondence between him and his manager in which he claims that she agreed to pay him in lieu of 30 days’ notice. He did not receive this payment. CA-40232-003: Complaint under the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 Ms Bencsik said that the complainant’s case is that his dismissal was unfair, but she acknowledges that he does not have the service required to bring him within the scope of the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act or the Redundancy Payments Act. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-40232-001: Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 Following the hearing, I examined the complainant’s contract of employment. Clause 9 is headed “Hours of Work” and states as follows: “Your normal hours of work will be from 9.00 to 18.00 hrs, with a one hour lunch break, Monday to Friday. Despite the aforesaid, some degree of flexibility may be required and you may be expected to work appropriate hours in order to carry out your responsibilities. However, it is the policy of the company that, as far as possible, extensive working hours above the norm should not occur. It is clear from this statement that the complainant was required to work eight hours each day, from Monday to Friday, resulting in a total requirement to work 40 hours each week. I find therefore, that there is no error or omission in the contract regarding a statement of the complainant’s daily or weekly hours of work. CA-40232-002: Complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 At the hearing, the complainant said that he was informed by email on June 18th 2020, that his employment would end on July 1st and that his last day at work would be June 30th. As this is a complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, I am concerned with any breach of the legislation that provides for minimum notice and not contractual notice. As he had service in excess of 13 weeks and less than two years, the complainant was entitled to one week’s notice. I find therefore, that no breach of the legislation has occurred. CA-40232-003: Complaint under the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 These regulations are intended to provide for consultation with employees and their representatives in circumstances of collective redundancies and are not relevant to the complainant. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-40232-001: Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 CA-40232-002: Complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 CA-40232-003: Complaint under the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 I am mindful of the fact that the complainant was dismissed through no fault of his own, and that no concern was ever raised about his performance or his conduct during the timeframe when he was employed between December 2019 and June 2020. I appreciate also, that his employment was terminated at a difficult time, at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic and that he was concerned that it would be difficult to find another job. Thankfully, he found a new job relatively quickly and, on the date of this hearing, he remains employed. Having considered the complainant’s evidence at the hearing, and having listened to the submission of his representative, I decide that his complaints are not well founded. While it was a difficult experience for him to have been dismissed, I find that his employer committed no breaches of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 or the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000. |
Dated: 23rd February 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Statement of terms and conditions of employment, contractual notice, redundancy |