CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 39 OF THE ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997
This Order corrects the original Decision ADJ-00035092 issued on 12/09/2022 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035092
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Anne Cronin | Kerry Education And Training Board |
Representatives | Ms. Liz Fay Fórsa Trade Union | Mr. Liam Riordan, Mason Hayes and Curran |
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-00046209-001 | 14/09/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/04/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1st October 2019. The Complainant’s role was described as “School Bus Escort”. She is in receipt of a weekly payment of €181.38 and was still employed by the Respondent on the date of the hearing.
On 14th September 2021, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Complainant did not receive a contract of employment in contravention of the Act. By response, the Respondent conceded certain aspects of the complaint.
A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 29th April 2022. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced by either side during the hearing. No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complaint submitted that she commenced employment in October 2019. She was not provided with a written statement as to her terms of employment at the outset of her employment, despite several requests regarding the same. Following union intervention, a draft contract was issued on 12th February 2021. Shortly thereafter the Complainant attended a meeting with the Respondent, in the presence of her Union representative whereby it was agreed that the contract would be updated to give the Complainant comfort regarding various concerns. By the date of referral of the complaint, the updated contract was not issued or recieved. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
By response, the Respondent broadly accepted the Complainant’s version of events. They accepted that they were in breach of the legislation, however they submitted that part of the delay could be explain by an ongoing negotiation between the parties. The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant’s role was the first such contract they issued, and they had to receive clarification from a government department regarding some issues raised by the Complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 3 of the Act provides that an employee must receive a written statement as to their terms of employment at, or near, the commencement of their employment. In the present case, the Complainant received no such statement for a period of sixteen months following her commencement. Furthermore, on receipt of the same, some of the terms expressed in this statement were in draft form only, and still had not been finalised by the date of referral. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the Respondent is in breach of Section 3, and consequently the Complainant’s application is well-founded. |
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.
CA-00046209-001 Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act I find that the complaint is well-founded, and consequently the Complainant’s application succeeds. Section 7 of the Act (as amended) empowers me to award compensation not exceeding four weeks remuneration in respect of breach of the Act. Having regard to the totality of the evidence presented, I award the Complainant the sum of €725.53, or the equivalent of four weeks’ remuneration, in compensation. |
Dated: 12th September 2002.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Terms of Employment, Delay |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035092
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Anne Cronin | Kerry Education And Training Board |
Representatives | Ms. Liz Fay Fórsa Trade Union | Mr. Liam Riordan, Mason Hayes and Curran |
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-00046209-001 | 14/09/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/04/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1st October 2019. The Complainant’s role was described as “School Bus Escort”. She is in receipt of a weekly payment of €786.00 and was still employed by the Respondent on the date of the hearing.
On 14th September 2021, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Complainant did not receive a contract of employment in contravention of the Act. By response, the Respondent conceded certain aspects of the complaint.
A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 29th April 2022. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced by either side during the hearing. No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complaint submitted that she commenced employment in October 2019. She was not provided with a written statement as to her terms of employment at the outset of her employment, despite several requests regarding the same. Following union intervention, a draft contract was issued on 12th February 2021. Shortly thereafter the Complainant attended a meeting with the Respondent, in the presence of her Union representative whereby it was agreed that the contract would be updated to give the Complainant comfort regarding various concerns. By the date of referral of the complaint, the updated contract was not issued or recieved. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
By response, the Respondent broadly accepted the Complainant’s version of events. They accepted that they were in breach of the legislation, however they submitted that part of the delay could be explain by an ongoing negotiation between the parties. The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant’s role was the first such contract they issued, and they had to receive clarification from a government department regarding some issues raised by the Complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 3 of the Act provides that an employee must receive a written statement as to their terms of employment at, or near, the commencement of their employment. In the present case, the Complainant received no such statement for a period of sixteen months following her commencement. Furthermore, on receipt of the same, some of the terms expressed in this statement were in draft form only, and still had not been finalised by the date of referral. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the Respondent is in breach of Section 3, and consequently the Complainant’s application is well-founded. |
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.
CA-00046209-001 Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act I find that the complaint is well-founded, and consequently the Complainant’s application succeeds. Section 7 of the Act (as amended) empowers me to award compensation not exceeding four weeks remuneration in respect of breach of the Act. Having regard to the totality of the evidence presented, I award the Complainant the sum of €3,144.00, or the equivalent of four weeks’ remuneration, in compensation. |
Dated: 12th September 2002.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Terms of Employment, Delay |