Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ruth  Kelleher

Havenhill Trading Limited The Coachman Public House

Representatives

Valerie Ryan SCOTT RYAN SOLICITORS

Patrick Kennedy Patrick J. O'Meara & Co Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00051271-001

22/06/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00051271-002

22/06/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00051271-003

22/06/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00051271-004

22/06/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00051271-005

22/06/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00051271-007

22/06/2022

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in January 2005. The date the Complainant’s employment ended was in dispute. The Complainant was paid €560 per week. She worked between 36 and 39 hours. A complaint form was received by the WRC on 22 June 2022.

The matter was the subject of two hearings. The first hearing took place on 9 February 2023. This hearing was adjourned at the request of the Respondent, with the consent of the Complainant. The second hearing took place on 11 April 2023.

A preliminary point was raised by the Respondent.

The Respondent put forward that the Complainant did not have 12 months continuous service and so was not covered by the Unfair Dismissals Act.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant’s employment had ended on 7 October 2020 and a new employment relationship started on 3 August 2021 which lasted until 20 March 2022, this being the case the Complainant had only some seven months’ service, not the 12 months continuous service required to fall within the scope of the Unfair Dismissals Act. It is the Respondent’s contention that this was not a lay-off situation and that documentation from Revenue confirmed that the employment relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent had ended completely on 7 October 2020.

In response the Complainant stated that this was a lay-off situation.  The pub closed because of the pandemic on 7 October 2020 and she was laid off.  She returned to work in the pub as soon as it reopened in August 2021.

Findings in relation to the Preliminary Point

Continuous Service

Section 2 of the Unfair Dismissals Act states:

“2.—(1) in so far as any provision of this Act otherwise provides. This Act shall not apply in relation to any of the following persons:

(a) an employee (other than a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year’s continuous service with the employer who dismissed him.

“Continuous service” is calculated by reference to the First Schedule to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, as amended. The First Schedule of the 1973 Act (as amended provides that service shall be deemed to be continuous unless it is terminated either by the dismissal of the employee by his or her employer or the employee voluntarily leaving his employment. A lock-out does not constitute “a dismissal” nor does a lay-off amount to a termination by an employer of an employee’s service. An employee who claims and receives redundancy payment in respect of lay-off or short-time shall be deemed to have voluntarily left their employment.

In this instant case the Complainant was neither dismissed by her employer nor did she voluntarily leave her employment; she marked time waiting for the pub to reopen and when it did she resumed her employment.  Although the Complainant sought financial assistance by way of the Pandemic Unemployment Payment, this did not constitute a resignation as the expectation of the scheme was of a return to work as soon as possible by scheme claimants. The fact that she worked in a shop for a relatively short space of time (three and a half months) during the period the pub was closed does not break the employment relationship that existed with the Respondent. No RP 9 was served by the Complainant on the Respondent.

At no time during the period the pub was closed did the Respondent initiate any action to end the employment relationship that existed with the Complainant.

I find the period when the Complainant was not working in the pub, when the pub was closed because of the pandemic, does not count as a break in service. Therefore, the Preliminary Point is not upheld.

The Complainant provided a detailed written submission.

The Complainant submits that she had worked as a Barperson for almost 17 years until her employment was terminated, without notice, on 18 March 2022.

At the hearing the Complainant gave evidence under oath.

By way of background, the Complainant stated that shortly after the pub closed, she started working in a supermarket, however she did tell one of the pub owners, Mrs M, that she was not leaving their employment, that she would be back. The Complainant worked for around three and a half months in the supermarket, however she did not enjoy the work and resigned for the job in mid-January 2021. Around this time, she rang Mrs M and told her that she was available to work in the pub whenever it re-opened.

The Complainant stated that when pubs in general re-opened in July 2021, she was asked to come in and help with a deep clean that was to take place in the pub, which she did.

The Complainant retuned to work in the pub when it opened in August 2021.

The Complainant gave evidence regarding an incident that took place in the pub on 17 March 2022.  The Complainant was in the pub but not working and was having a drink with her cousin. She and her cousin went for a cigarette and met a man, Mr B, whom the Complainant stated had already been barred from the pub. A row ensued between this Mr B and the Complainant’s cousin.  The Complainant came in from the smoking area and told Mr M (a co-owner of the pub) who was behind the bar that Mr B was causing trouble and should be asked to leave. Mrs M arrived and the Complainant told her that Mr B was a troublemaker and that she should tell him to leave the pub. At this time Mr B was shouting obscenities and the Complainant got hit with a glass so she left the area and went into the front bar.  While she was in the front bar a member of staff managed to get Mr B out of the premises however, he returned and was subsequently removed from the premises by Gardai. The Complainant stated that Mrs M did not ask how she was after the incident.

The Complainant stated that the following day she had a black eye and went to her doctor.

On 18 March 2023, the Complainant stated that she had was back at work in the pub and she telephoned Mrs M about a function that was going on that day. The Complainant told Mrs M that the incident of the day before should not have happened and that she, Mrs M, had not dealt with it the way she should have done.  The Complainant was upset because she had not received a call from the owners asking if she was alright after the incident. She was agitated and upset and stated that she did tell Mrs M to fxxx off. She then sent a text message to Mrs M, saying that she was going home as her head was sore after being hit by a glass the night before. She said she would not have left the pub except for the fact that there were other members of staff present to run the pub.

The Complainant stated that around this time she sent a text to Mrs A which read, “ LM of (sic) home my head is cracking after getting hit with the glass last night. Ciara and Darren are here to hold the fort thanks.”

The Complainant stated that before she had left the pub Mr S arrived and asked her what was going on. She said she did not know. Mr S then asked the Complainant for her keys (to the pub) as he had forgotten his own set of keys.  The Complainant asked him Mr S if he was sacking her to which he replied, “no, I’ll call you if I need you.” The Complainant thought he just wanted things to cool down.

The Complainant stated that she was due to return to work on the following Monday and called Mr S on Sunday 19 March 2022, to check about her shift.  Mr S told the Complainant, “I’ll ring you if we need you.” The Complainant did not hear from the Respondent again. 

The Complainant stated that some four or five weeks later, having been without any income, she went to the Social Welfare office and was told she was not entitled to anything as she was still employed by the Respondent. She needed a solicitor’s letter in order to get support from Social Welfare and this is what she did.

The Complainant stated that she never once said she was leaving (her job in the pub), that she loved her job and that she never quit.

When asked about the existence of a disciplinary warning, the Complainant said she knew of no such warning nor had she ever been given a warning by the Respondent. The Complainant stated she did get paid, partially, for her last week in work, but she did not get an accompanying payslip. She received no other payment from the Respondent.

In cross examination, the Complainant denied that she was intoxicated on 18 March 2022 or that she had had a verbal altercation with Mr B.  She also denied that she had refused the offer of medical assistance. The Complainant accepted that she had told Mrs M to fxxx off and had hung up the phone, but this was because she was very upset about the whole thing.

Regarding the 18 March 2022, when Mr S came into the premises, the Complainant denied she had thrown her bunch of keys at him. When it was put to the Complainant that she had quit, she was adamant she had not.  The Complainant stated that she had gone to her solicitor initially to get the social welfare problems sorted out.

When asked why she believed she had been penalised the Complainant said she did not know, perhaps because she told Mrs M to fxxx off.  She stated that when Mr S took the keys from her this was a sign that she was being let go.

When asked whether the Respondent had contacted her to ask her to rethink about the matter the Complainant stated that the Respondent had not contacted her. When asked why she had not tried to talk to the Respondent she stated that she “knew the job was gone.”

In mitigation the Complainant stated that she had commenced work in a hotel in early May 2022, on a part-time, 16 to 18 hours per week basis earning approximately €11.00 per hour.

In conclusion, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has failed to provide evidence that could justify a dismissal. The Complainant maintains that the words of Mr S on 18 March 2022, “I’ll call you when I need you”,  and the act of asking the Complainant for her keys to the premises amount to a dismissal without notice and fair procedures.

Procedurally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent failed to implement any disciplinary policy; did not afford the Complainant the right to representation; did not provide the Complainant with the details of any allegations or complaints against her or proffer any reasons for her dismissal.   She was not afforded a fair and impartial determination in the matter; the matter was pre-determined and the Complainant was not given a right to appeal her dismissal.

At the hearing the Respondent, Mr S, gave evidence under oath.

He stated that he daughter, Mrs M, had called him on 18 March 2022, telling him that she had received a telephone call from the Complainant during which she had been the subject of insults.  She also told him that the Complainant had told her that she was no longer going to work in the pub.  Mr S, then went to the pub and spoke with the Complainant. He stated that the Complainant had her coat on and told him she was leaving. He says she was very aggressive and shouting.  He had to ask her to keep her voice down. He did not raise his voice as there were customers in the pub. He gave no indication that the Complainant was being dismissed.  When he asked for the keys to the pub he says the Complainant threw them on the floor and left the premises. When asked what exactly the Complainant had said, he replied that she had said, “I’m out of here, I’m finished.”  His understanding was that the Complainant no longer wished to work for the Respondents.

After the incident on 18 March 2022, the Respondent did not call the Complainant. He stated that he had asked the Complainant for her keys to the pub as his were in another place. The Respondent was adamant that the Complainant had not been dismissed.

In cross examination Mr S stated that his words to the Complainant were “I’ll call you”, not “I’ll call you if we want you”, as alleged by the Complainant.

In response to a question asking whether the Respondents had contacted the Complainant to ask her to rethink her position, Mr S stated that Mrs M tried to call the Complainant several times without success.

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 provides that: -  

Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act; to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

Section 6(4)(c) of the 1977 Act provides that: -  

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from ... the redundancy of the employee...

Section 6(7) provides that: -

 Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so —

(a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and

(b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in section 14(1) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice referred to in paragraph (d) (inserted by the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993) of section 7(2) of this Act.

There were several conflicts of evidence between the Complainant and Mr S regarding what took place on 18 March 2022, however whatever took place that day resulted in the ending of the employment relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent.

From the evidence adduced it is clear that on 18 March 2022, the Complainant said words which were interpreted (perhaps wishfully) as a resignation by the Respondent.  In this instance, the Respondent’s patience was exhausted and rather than try and come to some arrangement with the Complainant to get her back to work, the Respondent decided that enough was enough and the Complainant could leave if she so wished; the employer/employee relationship was terminated there and then, on 18 March 2023, by the Respondent. The fact that the pay given to the Complainant shortly after the contretemps with Mr S, indicates that the employment relationship had indeed ended.

The question to be answered in such a scenario is; was the Respondent reasonable in construing the words used by the Complainant on 18 March 2022, as words of resignation. I find the Respondent was not reasonable in so doing. Given the Complainant’s past record of some 17 years’ service, her upset at the incident of the night before and her perception that the matter was not being taken seriously by the Respondents, Mr S should have been more circumspect in dealing with the matter. I note the text message that the Complainant had sent to Mrs M on the 18 March 2022, which does not indicate any intention on the part of the Complainant of leaving her job.  I find the words used by the Complainant on 18 March 2022, were more in frustration than a rational, calm and premeditated expression of a desire to resign her position.

It is up to the employer to confirm a resignation, which must be clear and unambiguous. The onus is on the employer to take such steps as necessary to establish that there was a genuine resignation, for example, requesting the employee to confirm in writing that they wish to resign.  In this instance the employer failed to take those necessary steps.  Therefore, I find this was not a resignation, but a dismissal, and in the circumstances, an unfair dismissal.

Notwithstanding the above, the Complainant must share some of the fault for the confusion which ensued on and after the 18 March 2022.  Some level of responsibility for the outcome of the interaction lies with the Complainant.

I find compensation is warranted in this case.

In mitigation, the Complainant found work, albeit on less money than that which she enjoyed with the Respondent, within a two-month period.  Taking the above into consideration I find redress of 12 weeks’ pay is just and equitable in the circumstances.

This was an unfair dismissal and I award the Complainant €6,480.

The Complainant submits that she had worked for the Respondent for 17 years and that she was terminated without notice or payment in lieu of notice on 18 March 2022. In direct evidence the Complainant stated that she did not receive any payment after the 18 March 2022, except for her wages which were given to her on Monday 21 March 2022. She stated that she had not received any notice that her employment was being terminated. The Complainant puts forward that she was entitled to eight weeks’ notice payment.

The Respondent submits that as the Complainant had not been dismissed, that she had in fact resigned and therefore is not due any notice payment.  The Complainant is excluded from claiming unfair dismissal as she did not have 12 months continuous service.

The 1973 Act states:

4.— (1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be—

( a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week,

( b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks,

( c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks,

( d) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for ten years or more, but less than fifteen years, six weeks,

( e) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for fifteen years or more, eight weeks.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1 January 2005 and her employment ended on 18 March 2022 therefore she had more than fifteen years’ service with the Respondent and was therefore entitled to eight weeks’ notice payment, which she did not receive.  The Respondent has not met its obligations under the Act.

The Act was contravened. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant eight weeks’ pay, that is €4,320.

The Complainant further submits that she was subjected to penalisation by the Respondent contrary to section 27(2) of the Safety, Health and Welfare Act 2005, for having made complaints to the Respondent in relation to matters concerning health and safety issues in the workplace.  In summary, the Complainant submits that the Respondents failed in their duty to her when she raised issues of her personal safety on 17 March 2022. Her warnings about a troublesome customer were ignored and she suffered an injury as a result. The Respondent, according to the Complainant, failed to provide a safe place of work even after being warned on two occasions of the threat and hazard that was prevailed due to the presence of the unruly customer she had come across.

The Complainant submits that she was penalised and suffered detriment as a result in the following manners;

(a) she suffered an injury to her forehead as a result of the assault- due to the Respondents’ failure to provide a safe working environment;

(b) the Complainant was dismissed without notice;

(c) the Complainant was dismissed “on the spot” without payment in lieu of notice;

(d) the Complainant’s final pay package (collected following her dismissal) contained €315.00, thereby short-changing her pay by €115.00 being an unexplained financial penalty.

(e) The Complainant could not initially claim jobseeker’s allowance, had to apply for a new PPS number, was placed on emergency tax due to the Respondent’s failure or refusal to regulate the end of her employment with Revenue.

The Complainant claims compensation pursuant to section 28(3) of the 2005 Act at such amount as the Adjudication Officer considers just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

The Respondent submits that as there was no dismissal there could not have been any penalisation.

In the instant case, the Complainant claims that she was subjected to penalisation by the Respondent in that she was dismissed contrary to Section 27(2) of the Act for having made a complaint to management in relation to matters concerning health and safety issues in the workplace which took place on 17 March 2022.

The applicable law

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, states:

27.—(1) In this section “penalisation” includes any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects, to his or her detriment, an employee with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), penalisation includes—

(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001), or the threat of suspension, lay-off or dismissal,

(b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion,

(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours,

(d) imposition of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty), and

(e) coercion or intimidation.

(3) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee for—

(a) acting in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions,

(b) performing any duty or exercising any right under the relevant statutory provisions,

(c) making a complaint or representation to his or her safety representative or employer or the Authority, as regards any matter relating to safety, health or welfare at work,

(d) giving evidence in proceedings in respect of the enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions,

(e) being a safety representative or an employee designated under section 11 or appointed under section 18 to perform functions under this Act, or

(f) subject to subsection (6), in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he or she could not reasonably have been expected to avert, leaving (or proposing to leave) or, while the danger persisted, refusing to return to his or her place of work or any dangerous part of his or her place of work, or taking (or proposing to take) appropriate steps to protect himself or herself or other persons from the danger

28.—(1) Without prejudice to section 27 (4), an employee may present a complaint to a rights commissioner that his or her employer has contravened section 27 .

(2) Where a complaint under subsection (1) is made, the rights commissioner shall—

(a) give the parties an opportunity to be heard by the commissioner and to present to the commissioner any evidence relevant to the complaint,

(b) give a decision in writing in relation to it, and

(c) communicate the decision to the parties.

(3) A decision of a rights commissioner under subsection (2) shall do one or more of the following:

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded;

(b) require the employer to take a specific course of action;

(c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

(4) A rights commissioner shall not entertain a complaint under this section unless it is presented to him or her within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates or such further period not exceeding 6 months as the rights commissioner considers reasonable.

(5) (a) A complaint shall be presented by giving notice of it in writing to a rights commissioner and the notice shall contain such particulars and be in such form as may be specified from time to time by the Minister.

(b) A copy of a notice under paragraph (a) shall be given to the other party concerned by the rights commissioner concerned.

(6) Proceedings under this section before a rights commissioner shall be conducted otherwise than in public.

(7) A rights commissioner shall furnish the Labour Court with a copy of any decision given by the commissioner under subsection (2)

The requirements to establish that penalisation under s. 27 of the Act has occurred were set out most clearly in Paul O’ Neill v. Toni and Guy Blackrock Ltd (2010) 21 ELR 1

Firstly, it is necessary to establish that there has been a protected act. On the basis of the evidence adduced, it is not clear to me that there had been a protected act. In Paul O’ Neill v. Toni and Guy Blackrock Ltd (2010) 21 ELR 1 the Court set down that the requirement in this regard is that ‘…the claimant must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that he made complaints concerning health and safety.’ I am satisfied, in the instant case, that this has not been established.

That being the case, the complaint must fail.

The complaint is not well founded.

The Complainant submits that she did not take any holidays in 2021 and is therefore due pay in lieu of untaken leave.

The Respondent does not have any record of the Complainant’s leave.

The 1997 Act state:

Entitlement to annual leave.

19.—(1) Subject to the First Schedule (which contains transitional provisions in respect of the leave years 1996 to 1998), an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this Act referred to as “annual leave”) equal to—

(a) 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment),

(b) one-third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours, or

(c) 8 per cent. of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks):

Provided that if more than one of the preceding paragraphs is applicable in the case concerned and the period of annual leave of the employee, determined in accordance with each of those paragraphs, is not identical, the annual leave to which the employee shall be entitled shall be equal to whichever of those periods is the greater.

(1A) For the purposes of this section, a day that an employee was absent from work due to illness shall, if the employee provided to his or her employer a certificate of a registered medical practitioner in respect of that illness, be deemed to be a day on which the employee was—

(a) at his or her place of work or at his or her employer’s disposal, and

(b) carrying on or performing the activities or duties of his or her work.]

(2) A day which would be regarded as a day of annual leave shall, if the employee concerned is ill on that day and furnishes to his or her employer a certificate of a registered medical practitioner in respect of his or her illness, not be regarded, for the purposes of this Act, as a day of annual leave.

(3) The annual leave of an employee who works 8 or more months in a leave year shall, subject to the provisions of any employment regulation order, registered employment agreement, collective agreement or any agreement between the employee and his or her employer, include an unbroken period of 2 weeks.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (2) or any other provision of this Act but without prejudice to the employee’s entitlements under subsection (1), the reference in subsection (3) to an unbroken period of 2 weeks includes a reference to such a period that includes one or more public holidays or days on which the employee concerned is ill.

(5) An employee shall, for the purposes of subsection (1), be regarded as having worked on a day of annual leave the hours he or she would have worked on that day had it not been a day of annual leave.

(6) References in this section to a working week shall be construed as references to the number of days that the employee concerned usually works in a week.

Section 25 of the Act places an obligation on employers to maintain records showing that the provisions of the Act have been complied with and a failure to comply with it can result in prosecution. The records must show compliance with all aspects of the Act, including hours worked, breaks taken, holidays provided and notifications given of variable starting and finishing times.

Apart from any criminal sanction that can be imposed in relation to failure to maintain records, if a dispute arises concerning compliance with any requirement under the Act, the absence of records will result in the onus of proving the Act was not contravened resting on the employer. Without proper records it is difficult for an employer to discharge that burden.  In this instant case not only did the employer not have proper records, there were no records whatsoever adduced.

The Complainant stated that she did not take any holidays in 2021 nor was she paid in lieu of holidays.  In the circumstances where there are no records, I find she is entitled to some pay in lieu of her untaken 2021 holidays.

However, there are only limited circumstances in which an employee can carry forward a portion of annual leave form one year to another.  I find compensation of two weeks to be just and equitable in the circumstances.

The complaint is well founded and I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant €1,080.

The Complainant submits that she did not get paid for Public Holidays as follows; Christmas Day and St Stephen’s Day 2021, St Patrick’s Day 2022.

The Respondent accepted that the Complainant had not been paid for two days Public Holidays and was owed €120.00.

I find the Complainant was not paid for two Public Holidays and is therefore due €120.00.

The complaint is well founded and I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant €120.00.

Summary of Complainant’s Case

The Complainant stated that she never got payslips and that she had never been provided with a contract of employment.

The Respondent accepted that a formal contract of employment had not been provided to the Complainant.

Section 3 (1) of this Act 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."

Section 7 of the Act, states:

7. — (1) An employee shall not be entitled to present a complaint under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in respect of a contravention of section 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 , if the employer concerned has —

( a ) complied with a direction under section 6A given in relation to the contravention F11 [ before, on or after the commencement of section 8 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 ] , or

( b ) been given a direction under that section in relation to the contravention and the period specified in the direction within which he or she is required to comply with the direction has not yet expired.

(2) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 shall do one or more of the following, namely —

( a ) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

( b ) either —

(i) confirm all or any of the particulars contained or referred to in any statement furnished by the employer under section 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 , or

(ii) alter or add to any such statement for the purpose of correcting any inaccuracy or omission in the statement and the statement as so altered or added to shall be deemed to have been given to the employee by the employer,

( c ) require the employer to give or cause to be given to the employee concerned a written statement containing such particulars as may be specified by the adjudication officer,

( d ) order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks ’ remuneration in respect of the employee ’ s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 . ]

I am satisfied that the Complainant was never provided with a Contract of Employment nor a Statement of the Terms of her Employment despite her long service. Such an inconsiderate approach to the rights of an employee is unacceptable.

 I find the complaint is well founded and I direct a payment of compensation in the amount of

€ 2,160.00 which I find is just and equitable in all the circumstances.

Resignation, duty of employer, employment rights.