Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Natalia  Tetyukhina

Joule Group Limited

Representatives

  N/A

Mr. Patrick Watters, Beauchamps LLP.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00055374-001

02/03/2023

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

CA-00055374-002

02/03/2023

From 14 November 2022 to 23 February 2023, the Complainant worked for the Respondent as a Trainee Accountant. The Complainant worked approximately 40 hours per week and earned €2,333.33 per month or €28,000 per annum. The Complainant filed her Complaint Form with the WRC on 2 March 2023. The Complainant submitted that she was dismissed without notice on 23 February 2023 and alleges that there was a violation of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973, as amended. The Complainant further alleges that she was not provided with a copy of her contract, in violation of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, as amended. The Respondent denies the allegations in their entirety.

The Complainant provided detailed submissions.

CA-00055374-001 – Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973:

The Complainant submitted that her last day at work was 23 February 2023. She stated that Ms. Molloy approached her that day and told her verbally, that her performance “was low”; that it was her last day of work; and that she was required to leave immediately. The Complainant outlined that when she queried this, she was told that her contract did not have to be terminated in writing and that it could be terminated verbally.

The Complainant submitted that she did receive her notice pay in full on 31 March 2023. However, the Complainant took issue with the Respondent’s alleged delay in making the payment and with the Respondent’s alleged failure to inform her that she was entitled to notice pay. The Complainant submitted that she had to seek advice from Citizen’s Information about her entitlements.

Under cross-examination, the Complainant was referred to an email dated 24 February 2023 from the HR Manager which stated, inter alia, “The Company will pay you one week’s salary in lieu of working out your notice period …. Your final salary payment, including payment for any accrued but unused annual leave, will be made on 31st March 2023 …”

Under cross-examination, the Complainant was referred to her two final payslips dated 24 February 2023 and 31 March 2023. The Complainant confirmed receipt of payment for her notice period; her accrued annual leave entitlement; and her final salary payment.

CA-00055374-002 – Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994:

The Complainant submitted that she did not receive a copy of her Contract of Employment. She submitted that on 23 February 2023, when her employment was terminated, she sought a copy of her contract. She was then sent an electronic copy by email and a couple of days later, she received a hard copy by post.

Under cross-examination, the Complainant was referred to her Contract of Employment. She confirmed that she had signed it on 14 November 2022. The Complainant confirmed that the same contract also indicated, in bold “You should retain one copy of this document for information”. The Complainant stated that she did not keep a copy.

Under cross-examination, the Complainant also confirmed that when she contacted the Respondent on 23 February 2023 regarding her contract, she was sent a copy that evening at 17.23 by the HR Manager; and that she received a hard copy by post a couple of days later.

Finally, the Complainant outlined that this has been “very hard” and “very stressful” for her and that she had to seek help from her doctor.

The Respondent provided detailed submissions.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s employment was terminated during her probation period and in accordance with Clause 5 of her Contract of Employment. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was paid in lieu of notice. The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant received her contract and was given time to reflect on it before signing.

CA-00055374-001 – Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973:

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had worked for the Respondent for 14 weeks and three days and that she was paid in lieu of notice. The Respondent submitted that this payment was made during two payment cycles – as reflected in the payslips dated 24 February 2023 and 31 March 2023. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant received three days’ pay in the first payment cycle and two days’ pay in the second payment cycle.

Evidence – Ms. Manami Molloy:

Ms. Molloy outlined that she is the Respondent’s Financial Controller and that she was the Complainant’s Line Manager. Ms. Molloy outlined that she has worked for the Respondent for approximately five and a half years.

Ms. Molloy outlined that she met with the Complainant on 23 February 2023. She outlined that she explained to the Complainant that her employment was not “working out” and so her employment was being terminated. Ms. Molloy outlined that during the meeting, she explained to the Complainant that she would be paid in lieu of notice and that she would receive that payment, along with pay for any accrued annual leave, in the next pay cycles. She further outlined that she informed the Complainant that if she had any queries, she should direct them to the HR Manager.

Under cross-examination, Ms. Molloy reiterated that she explained to the Complainant that she would be paid in lieu of notice.

CA-00055374-002 – Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994:

The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant received a Contract of Employment in November 2023 and that when the Complainant’s employment was terminated, pursuant to her request, she received an electronic copy on 23 February 2023 and a hard copy a couple of days later.

Evidence – Ms. Eileen Quill:

Ms. Quill outlined that she is the Respondent’s HR Manager and that she has worked for the Respondent for approximately three years.

Ms. Quill outlined that she was not at the Complainant’s employment termination meeting on 23 February 2023 as she works part-time. She outlined that following the Complainant’s request, she sent her an electronic copy of her contract that evening and she sent her a hard copy by post a couple of days later. Ms. Quill further outlined that on 24 February 2023, she emailed the Complainant and explained that she would be paid one week’s salary in lieu of notice as well as pay for any accrued but unused annual leave.

Ms. Quill outlined that there were two “new joiners” on the day that the Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent. She outlined that during the “induction programme”, the Complainant was welcomed to the company and provided with a folder containing, inter alia, the Respondent’s handbook; health and safety statement; acknowledgement forms; GDPR forms; and her Contract of Employment. Ms. Quill outlined that the Complainant took the folder to consider the contents. Ms. Quill outlined that the Complainant then returned to her approximately two days later, with the signed Contract of Employment which she then counter-signed and filed.

CA-00055374-001 – Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973:

The Law:

Notice entitlements are set out under section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, as amended (the “MNTEA”), as follows:

“(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”.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant’s employment was terminated on 23 February 2023, after she had worked for the Respondent for approximately 14 weeks. Pursuant to section 4(2)(a) of the MNTEA, the Complainant was entitled to one weeks’ notice. In her own evidence, the Complainant accepted that she received this payment. However, she alleged that she had not been provided with sufficient information concerning the payment and that there was an unreasonable delay in the payment. The Complainant was emailed regarding her pay entitlements on 24 February 2023 and she received full payment by 21 March 2023. The Complainant received her notice pay. In the circumstances, I find that the MNTEA was not contravened and that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00055374-002 – Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994:

The Law:

Pursuant to section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, as amended (the “TEIA”), an employer shall “give or cause to be given”, to the employee, a statement in writing containing specificparticulars of the terms of the employee’s employment.This statement in writing must be given to the employee within one month of the commencement of employment.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant received her Contract of Employment in a large folder during her “induction programme” with the Respondent. She had time to consider the contract, before signing and returning it to the Respondent. In the same contract it states, above the signature panel “You should retain one copy of this document for information”. The Complainant did not do so. The Complainant received her contract. In the circumstances, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00055374-001 – Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973:

For the reasons set out above, I find that this act was not contravened and that this complaint is not well founded

CA-00055374-002 – Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994:

For the reasons set out above, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973, Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.