Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Monta Gedrovica-Arshad

Golden Sun Tanning Limited

Representatives

  In person

 Did not attend

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-00062780-003

12/04/2024

 The complainant is employed by the respondent as a receptionist/beautician. The complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 12th April 2024. The issue relates to an assertion by the complainant that the respondent has breached the legislation by not providing her with a written copy of her terms and conditions of employment in September 2019 when she commenced in her role or at any time since then.

As part of the inquiry into the complaint, the complainant stated that the correct name of the respondent is Golden Sun Tanning Limited. The “Limited” was not included on the adjudication complaint form in error. I have reviewed the Company Registration Office website on the issue and am satisfied that the correct respondent is Golden Sun Tanning Limited which will be reflected in  the title of this decision.

The complainant represented herself at the adjudication hearing and addressed her complaint by way of verbal submission. The complainant stated that she was absent on sick leave when her employer sought to have her attend its doctor. The complainant stated that she received advice that if her contract of employment did not provide for an occupational health assessment, she did not have to attend same. The complainant stated that she then sought a copy of her contract from the employer who was unable to provide her with a copy. Following a WRC inspection, the complainant stated that she received a purported copy of her contract from the WRC, but it was inaccurate in terms of her hours of work and the signature on it was not hers. The complainant stated that she never saw that contract and that she was never provided with a written contract of employment since she commenced her employment in September 2019.

The respondent did not attend the adjudication hearing and was not represented.

The complainant has raised issues of dissatisfaction relating to her employment. She remains in the employment of the respondent but is currently absent on sick leave. While there are other adjudication complaints to be addressed by the WRC, the within complaint relates to the assertion that the complainant did not receive a written contract of employment when she commenced her employment in September 2019 and has not received a signed copy of her contract to date.

A signed copy of the complainant’s purported contract was available at the adjudication hearing, but the complainant stated that it did not refer to her correct hours of work and that the signature on that contract was not hers.

While the principal of the respondent was on notice of the hearing, she did not attend and stated in an email to the WRC afterwards that she had forgotten due to unforeseen family issues that had arisen.

Having considered the verbal submissions of the complainant, I accept her position that the signature on the purported contract of employment was not hers. I also note that the complainant signed an attendance sheet at the adjudication hearing and her signature on that document was very different to the one on the contract that she was alleged to have signed previously.

 In the absence of any participation from the respondent at the adjudication hearing or documents submitted to the contrary, I accept on balance that the complainant did not receive a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment in accordance with Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. Accordingly, I find that the complaint succeeds.

The complaint is well founded. The respondent is directed to pay the complainant two weeks’ pay (€680.00) in respect of the breach of the legislation.

Terms of Employment, no written contract.