ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052320
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Lilie White | Laurel Enterprises Ltd T/A Centra Cabra |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Self-Represented |
Complaints:
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-00063947-001 | 06/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00063947-002 WITHDRAWN | 06/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00063947-003 WITHDRAWN | 06/06/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/09/2024 &28/11/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints. The hearings were conducted in person in Lansdowne House.
While the parties are named in the Decision, I will refer to Ms Lillie White as “the Complainant” and to Laurel Enterprises Ltd T/A Centra Cabra as “the Respondent”.
I explained the procedural changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. An Adjudication Officer, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 in April 2021. No application was made that the hearing be conducted other than in public. The Complainant agreed to proceed in the knowledge that a decision issuing from the WRC would disclose her identity. There was no requirement for sworn evidence in circumstances where there was no dispute on the material facts.
The Complainant attended the hearing and she presented as a litigant in person. The Complainant was accompanied by her mother Ms Natasha White. The Respondent was represented by Mr Mark Kenna Company Director and he presented as a litigant in person.
No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.
I can confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into this complaint.
The Complainant confirmed at close of hearing that she had received a fair hearing of her complaint and that she was satisfied she had been provided with the opportunity to say everything she wished to say.
Background:
These matters came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 06/06/2024. The Complainant alleges contraventions by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statutes in relation to her employment with the Respondent. The aforesaid complaints were referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 02/09/2024 and a further hearing took place on 28/11/2024.
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a deli assistant at all material times. The Complainant worked on average 14 hours per week for which was paid €10.16 gross per hour. The Respondent is one of a number of supermarkets trading nationwide. The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent on 09/10/2023. The employment ended on 26/05/2024.
The first hearing of this matter was adjourned on 02/09/2024 because I was not satisfied the Respondent was properly on notice of the hearing and having contacted him at the commencement of hearing on the mobile phone number provided by the Complainant on her WRC complaint form the Respondent indicated he wished to attend the hearing. Accordingly, I adjourned on the day.
Adjudicator Note: The hourly rate paid to the Complainant at all material times was compliant with the provisions of the relevant legislation as applicable to the Complainant in terms of her age at that time.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00063947-001 complaint pursuant to section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (“the 1994 Act”) The Complainant alleges she did not receive a statement in writing on her terms of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00063947-001 complaint pursuant to section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (“the 1994 Act”) The Respondent accepts that the Complainant was not provided with a statement in writing on her terms of employment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00063947-001 The Relevant Law The Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, as amended sets out the basic terms of employment which an employer must provide to an employee in written format. Section 3 (1A) obligates an employer to provide an employee with certain essential information, or core terms, in writing within five days of commencing employment. Section 3 (1) provides that an employer must provide an employee with a written statement of terms of employment within one month of commencement of employment. Section 7 of the Act provides as follows: (2) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 3, 4, 5, 6, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F or 6G] shall do one or more of the following namely— (a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded, (b) either— (i) confirm all or any of the particulars contained or referred to in any statement furnished by the employer under section 3, 4, 5, 6, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F or 6G, or (ii) alter or add to any such statement for the purpose of correcting any inaccuracy or omission in the statement and the statement as so altered or added to shall be deemed to have been given to the employee by the employer, (c) require the employer to give or cause to be given to the employee concerned a written statement containing such particulars as may be specified by the adjudication officer, (d) in relation to a complaint of a contravention under section 3, 4, 5, 6, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F or 6G and without prejudice to any order made under paragraph (e) order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of 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. The Relevant Facts The Complainant asserts she did not receive a contract of employment and this assertion is not denied by the Respondent. The Respondent accepts there was no contract of employment. Accordingly, I find this complaint is well-founded.
In the circumstances I decide it is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances to order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation in the amount of €426.72 for breach of a statutory right.
This award is by way of compensation for a breach of the Complainant’s statutory right and is not in respect of remuneration including arrears of remuneration.
|
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-00063947-001 complaint pursuant to section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 For the reasons stated above I decide this complaint is well-founded. I order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €426.72 which I consider just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances.
|
Dated: 05/12/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Key Words:
No contract; |