ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046930

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Patrick Reddy	Gerard Martin Hennessy t/a Hennessy Plant Hire

Representatives

Self-Represented

MM Halley & Son

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-00057731-002	15/07/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00057731-005	15/07/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/12/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following 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.

Background:

The Complaint Form was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 15 July 2023

The Complainant swore an affirmation at the hearing.

There were two witnesses for the Respondent with both swore an Oath.

These claims are linked to a dispute which is dealt with in separate recommendation.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

CA-00057731-002 – Contract

The Complainant gave evidence that he did not receive a contract of employment

CA-00057731-005 - Minimum Notice

The Complainant gave evidence that he did not receive minimum notice or payment in lieu.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

CA-00057731-002 – Contract

Mrs Hennessy gave evidence that she posted the contract of employment to the Complainant’s home address when he commenced employment. A copy was produced at the hearing.

CA-00057731-005 - Minimum Notice

Mr and Mrs Hennessy gave evidence that the Complainant left his employment, took up employment elsewhere and no notice was given.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00057731-002 – Contract

I accept the evidence of the Respondent based on the presentation of the contract of employment at the hearing which is of its time. However, It is noted that neither party could agree on the gross hourly rate which ought to be clear on the contract.

On that basis the contract of employment is not in compliance with Section 3 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00057731-005 - Minimum Notice

I do not find that the Complainant was entitled to minimum notice on the basis he left his employment.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

CA-00057731-002 – Contract

The complaint is well founded.

In terms of redress, compensation which is provided for in Section 7 (2) (D) of the Act and the most appropriate in the circumstances.

Section 7 (2) (D) provides:-

“(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”

Having regard to the circumstances of this case, I award compensation in the sum of €1,097.70 being the equivalent to one week’s gross wages as per the 2023 payslips provided.

CA-00057731-005 - Minimum Notice

The complaint is not well founded.

Dated: 9th January, 2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer

Key Words:

Contract – minimum notice