Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Delivery Driver

A Food Producer

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-00034707-001

18/02/2020

The complainant asserts that there was a contravention of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, and the respondent denies the claim.

The complainant outlined that he did not always get pay slips and it was unclear what he was being paid for. He never signed a contract of employment. He had never before seen the contract presented to the hearing by the respondent. In 2019, he had worked for three weeks but was only paid for two weeks on his return from annual leave. He acknowledged that this related to a pay period some two years previously.

The witness outlined that he had also worked for the respondent and that he never received a contract of employment.

The complainant outlined that he had lived at the address stated in the statement of terms presented at the hearing by the respondent in 2007. His pay was about €450 per week, and he received some bonuses. He confirmed that his employment ended in July 2020.

The complainant outlined that he had received the warning because he refused to comply with certain instructions. The complainant outlined that he had been asked to undertake tasks not provided for in his contract of employment. These instructions related to delivering cash to a bank, where there was no parking close to the bank. The complainant said that it was dangerous for him to park the truck and then to walk to the bank with a large amount of cash. He commented that a colleague had been attacked doing this.

The complainant said that the respondent had previously refused to pay for parking ticket when he had to park illegally to be close to the bank. The complainant then refused to deliver cash to the bank and only made deliveries to restaurants. The respondent used a bank in Northern Ireland, and it was therefore only those deliveries routes that covered locations in Northern Ireland required the delivery to the bank. There was a safe in the truck and the issue was that there was no parking close to the bank.

The complainant outlined that over Christmas 2019, the respondent had required employees to work on Sundays to complete deliveries. They were not paid a Sunday rate. The complainant referred to the roster for 31st December 2019 showing Sunday work. He was asked to work on Sunday on only occasion. 

The complainant said that he had received three warnings and was later dismissed. The issue on the third occasions related to missing material on a truck. One box was missing, and he was accused of theft. The complainant could not remember where he had placed the box. He offered to compensate the employer.

In reply to the respondent, the complainant said that he never received any contract of employment from the respondent. He said that the signature on the 2013 document was faked. He had never seen the 2005 contract. The contract referred to collecting money from customers and he had refused to deliver money. The complainant said that he was dismissed on false grounds, and he had delivered all the goods.

The respondent submitted that this adjudication was only related to the complaint pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. The respondent outlined that the complainant was supplied with a contract of employment on his first day working for the respondent. This was the 1st June 2005. The respondent outlined that the complainant had signed to acknowledge receipt of the statement. The respondent submitted that the delivery to the bank was part of his contract as a van driver.

The Country Manager outlined that he started working for the respondent in 2015 so was not there when the 2013 statement was issued. At the investigation meeting in March 2015, he had provided the complainant with the 2005 and 2013 contracts on file. The complainant said that the contracts were not his and he had not signed them. The Country Manager outlined that he told the complainant that he could take the minutes. The Country Manager outlined that the manager named on the statements were

In respect of the 4th January 2020, the complainant had not attended work on the Saturday and this day was rostered to give staff New Year’s Eve off. The respondent had an established practice of lodging sterling collected from customers in Northern Ireland to the bank in Northern Ireland. He outlined that the complainant had undertaken this task for many years, and this was only a problem when the parking ticket was issued. The respondent had offered to give the complainant sterling cash to use in the parking metres.

The respondent outlined that the complainant took a case before the Labour Court in 2012 and the contract of employment had been lodged with the Labour Court then. He took cases in 2012 and a contract was lodged in court. The respondent outlined that the complainant had been dismissed for theft, when he was identified on CCTV taking two boxes and four drums.

This is a complaint pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. The complainant’s employment commenced on the 1st June 2005 and ended on the 2nd July 2020. This complaint does not relate to the circumstances around the ending of the complainant’s employment.

The obligation in section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act is for the employer to provide a statement of the principal terms of the employee’s employment. It must be signed by the employer and retained on file during the employee’s employment and for one year after the ending of the employment.

The respondent gave evidence that contracts were provided to the complainant during the course of his employment. They were updated over this time. The complainant signed for receipt of the 2013 contract. This is very strong evidence that a statement of terms of employment was provided to the complainant in line with the requirements of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. The parties referred to their previous cases and I note that one of these cases relates to discrimination the contract provided was only in the English language.

I have also considered this case whether there was a contravention of section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, i.e. whether there was a failure to notify the employee of a change in their terms and conditions within one month of the change occurring. The change here relates to the requirement to lodge monies to the bank. The statement refers to collecting money from customers but not specifically to the bank run. I find that the practice of lodging monies to the bank were part of the duties of a delivery driver and did not represent a change in the ‘nature’ of the work. I also note that it was an established practice for several years for the complainant to lodge money in the bank, whenever he was assigned a route going to Northern Ireland.

For the above reasons, I find that there was no contravention of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, and the complaint is, therefore, not well-founded.

CA-00034707-001

I decide that this complaint is not well-founded as there was no contravention of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act.

Terms of Employment (Information) Act / statement