ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035253
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Saoirse Larkin Hughes | Nibeck Ltd |
Representatives | Self Represented | Marianne Deely Brian P. Adams & Company |
Complaints:
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-00046274-001 | 16/09/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00046274-002 | 16/09/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00046274-004 | 16/09/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00046295-001 | 18/09/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00046295-002 | 18/09/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00046295-004 | 18/09/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/10/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The hearing was conducted remotely 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 filed two Compliant Forms to the Workplace Relations Commission first on 16 September 2021 and the second with the same claims and narrative on 18 September 2021.
The parties agreed the Complainant worked 36 hours per week and earned €355 gross.
The Complainant swore an affirmation and gave evidence.
A Director of the Respondent, Mr Akash Aggarwal appeared on behalf of the Respondent and swore an affirmation along with Ms Kenny, Area Manager.
Both parties were given a full opportunity to present their evidence and cross examination the other party. The Complainant decided not to cross examine the Respondent’s witnesses.
There was post hearing correspondence from the Respondent with a contract of employment on 24 October 2022. The Complainant replied by email on 24 October 2022. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
At the hearing of the case, the Complaint withdrew the claims set out in a duplicated Complaint Form received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 18 September 2021 – CA-00046295-001, CA-00046295-002, and CA-00046295-004. The Complainant further withdrew CA-00046274-004 pursuant to the Unfair Dismissal Act 1979 after being given time to consider her decision. CA-00046274-001 It was the Complainant’s claim that she was not provided with a contract of employment. Following the hearing the Respondent furnished a blank contract of employment via email to which the Complainant stated, again via email, that she never saw such a document nor received one. CA-00046274-002 The Complainant repeated her evidence that she did not receive her core terms of employment in writing. CA-00046274-004 This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing by the Complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00046274-001 It was the Respondent’s evidence that the Complainant was provided with a contract of employment. However, it was unable to present a copy of the signed contract as there had been a theft at the premises and some documents had been stolen including the Complainant’s contract of employment. Mr Aggarwal gave evidence that the handbook was attached to the contract of employment. CA-00046274-002 The Respondent presented the same defence in evidence to this claim as CA-00046274-001. CA-00046274-004 This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing by the Complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00046274-001 There is no clear evidence before me that the Complainant was provided with a contract of employment. The Respondent failed to provide any detail as to when the contract would have been signed, how it was communicated to the Complainant, whether she would have received a copy nor was there evidence from the party who provided her with contract. In the absence of such evidence and where the contract and handbook presented post hearing by the Respondent are at odds in terms of their policies, on the balance of probabilities I find there was a contravention of the Act. CA-00046274-002 In light of the above finding and based on the evidence presented at the hearing, I find this claim to be a duplicate claim of CA-00046274-001 CA-00046274-004 This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing by the Complainant. Therefore, I find the complaint is not well founded and she was not unfairly dismissed from her employment. |
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.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00046274-001 The Act was contravened and award the Complainant one week’s wages in the sum of €355. CA-00046274-002 The Act was not contravened. CA-00046274-004 This complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 4th January 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal – Employment Contract |