ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044387
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sebastian Uglis | Kilcullen Asian World Food Limited |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00054892-001 | 05/02/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/08/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
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 any evidence relevant to the complaint. The hearing was held in the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) hearing rooms in Carlow. The complainant attended. Mr Mullen and Ms Dzianach attended for the respondent.
Background:
The complainant alleges that he had not received a contract of employment over the course of his employment. He earned €283.56 per week over the 9 months he was employed with the respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant gave evidence that he had not received a contract over the course of his employment. He claims that he was disadvantaged by not being aware of the procedures to follow within the employment when issues arose. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Mr Mullen on behalf of the respondent gave evidence that all contracts are issued to staff on the first day of their employment and submitted a copy of the contract. Mr Mullen confirmed that the contract that issued was not signed by the employer and that this was an oversight. He also submitted payroll sheets to show the earnings of the complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
There is a clear conflict in evidence. The complainant stated he received no contract over the course of his employment. The respondent stated that a contract issues to all staff on their first day of employment. The purported contract provided at the hearing was unsigned by both parties. Section 3 (4) of the Act states- 4) A statement furnished by an employer shall be signed and dated by or on behalf of the employer. As the contract was not signed and dated by the employer, I find that there has been a breach of the Act. Having reviewed the contract, I note that it is a generic statement of the terms and conditions for all staff. The complainant is not named, there is no commencement date, nor is the rate of pay documented. The generic contract states ‘The rate of pay will be reviewed annually.’ It does not contain the mandatory requirements under Section 3 (1A) of the Act and these are subsisting breaches right up to the end of employment.
In accordance with Section 7 of the Act, I declare that the complaint is well founded.
As per Section 7 of the Act, there is provision to pay the employee compensation of such amount as the adjudicator considers just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration.
I consider the breaches of the Act to be serious, as even if the contract was issued to the complainant, it did not conform to the requirements of the Act.
I order the employer pay to the employee the equivalent of 4 weeks’ pay which is €1,134.24. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a statutory right and is not wages or arrears of wages. |
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.
In accordance with Section 7 of the Act, I declare that the complaint is well founded. I order the employer pay to the employee the equivalent of 4 weeks’ pay which is €1,134.24. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a statutory right and is not wages or arrears of wages.
|
Dated: 05/09/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Contract of employment |