TED2419

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00048584 (CA-00059589-002)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 24 April 2024 in accordance with the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2012.  A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2 August 2024. 

DECISION:

This matter comes before the Court as an appeal of a decision by an Adjudication Officer in a complaint made by Declan Gargan (the Claimant) against his former employer Shapoorji Pallonji Europe Limited Ltd (the Respondent) under the Terms of Employment (information) Act, 1994 (the Act).

The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was not well founded.

The case

A liquidator responsible for the Respondent company did not attend the hearing of the Court.

The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent in June 2022. The employment terminated in October 2023.

The documentation provided to the Court by the Claimant makes clear that no written statement compliant with the Act issued to the Claimant at any time during the period of his employment in that no statement signed and dated by the Respondent or on behalf of the Respondent issued to the Claimant.

Relevant law

The Act at Section 3 in relevant part provides as follows:

3.—(1) An employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee's employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee's employment.

3(4) A statement furnished by an employer under subsection (1) shall be signed and dated by or on behalf of the employer.

The Act at Section 7 makes provision in relevant part makes provision as follows:

7.—        (1) An employee may present a complaint to a rights commissioner that his or her employer has contravened section 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 in relation to him or her and, if he or she does so, the commissioner shall give the parties an opportunity to be heard by the commissioner and to present to the commissioner any evidence relevant to the complaint, shall give a recommendation in writing in relation to it and shall communicate the recommendation to the parties.

(2) A recommendation of a rights commissioner under subsection (1) shall do one or more of the following:

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(d) order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employee's employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977,

Summary submission of the Claimant

The Claimant submitted that a breach of the Act has occurred.

Discussion

The Court takes the view that the requirement to supply a written statement of the terms of the Claimant’s employment was an important one, intended to provide the clarity to him as regards his terms of employment as required by the Act and the Directive. The Claimant in this case was without that clarity during the course of his employment, and that failure on behalf of the Respondent amounts to a breach of the Act.

Determination

The Court determines that the Respondent was in breach of the Act at Section 3 and the complaint is well founded. The Court orders the Respondent to pay the sum of €4,807.69 in compensation to the Claimant, being a sum equivalent to four weeks remuneration and being the amount which the Court considers just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. 

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is set aside.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CC	______________________
13 August 2024	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.