Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ayman  Almasey

Patisserie Royale

Representatives

  In person

 ESA Consultants

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-00059301-001

09/10/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00059301-003

09/10/2023

The complainant was employed by the respondent from 23rd May 2023 until 5th September 2023. The complaint was lodged to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 9th October 2023 and relates to an alleged contravention of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. This complaint was assigned the complaint application number CA-00059301-001.

A further complaint was submitted by the complainant under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 in respect of minimum notice entitlements. This complaint was assigned the complaint application number CA-00059301-003.

CA-59301-001 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

The complainant stated that he did not receive a copy of his contract of employment in compliance with the provisions of the legislation. The complainant gave evidence by affirmation on this point and stated in evidence that he never received pages 1 and 2 of the contract and simply signed the second page in respect of the correct bank account details where his salary would be paid. The complainant acknowledged that he did not ask for a copy of the contract and that he also did not ask for or receive a copy of the staff handbook.

CA-59301-003 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The complainant stated at the adjudication hearing that, given his length of service with the employer, he was entitled to one weeks’ notice of the termination of his employment. The complainant is seeking one weeks’ pay in respect of this issue.

CA-59301-001 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

A principal of the respondent gave evidence by affirmation in relation to the complainant’s contract. The witness stated that the complainant did receive a copy of the contract of employment after signing it but was not given a copy of the staff handbook although he was told that it was available to him. The respondent’s position is that as the complainant did receive a copy of his contract, the complaint is without merit and should be dismissed.

CA-59301-003 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The respondent stated that no complaint was lodged to adjudication on this issue and the claim should therefore be dismissed.

CA-59301-001 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

I have carefully considered the position of the parties to this complaint. In relation to the contract, there is a direct conflict of evidence on the issue. Having heard from both parties on this point, I prefer the evidence of the complainant. His evidence in relation to the circumstances of the signing of the second page of the contract was very clear and his position was that he did not receive a copy of the contract but signed it so that his salary payments would be made to him. The respondent principal in her evidence appeared somewhat unsure in relation to the complainant being given a copy of his contract and in the absence of a signed letter by the complainant confirming receipt of the contract, I find on balance that the complainant did not receive a copy of same as required by Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-59301-003 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

This complaint relates to notice entitlements. The complainant did not specify that he sought adjudication on this complaint in his complaint form. The Postal Registration Unit of the WRC wrote to the complainant on 20th October 2023 seeking clarification on the complaint. The complainant respondent on 17th November 2023 confirming that it related to notice entitlements. However, he did not specify the appropriate redress option as to whether he wished the matter to be addressed by adjudication or by inspection.

The respondent argued that no complaint was submitted to adjudication in relation to this complaint and that the complaint should be dismissed.

On this point, I note that the WRC complaint form is not a statutory complaint form. However, I accept the point made by the respondent that adjudication had not been sought in relation to the issue of notice and the matter was only clarified at the adjudication hearing on 28th March 2024. On that date, the respondent was aware that the matter was being pursued at adjudication and I have taken 28th March 2024 as the date of receipt of this completed complaint.

As the complainant’s employment ended on 5th September 2023, his complaint relating to notice received on 28th March 2024 was outside of the six-month statutory time limit for the receipt of such complaints. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is out of time.

CA-59301-001 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

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

CA-59301-003 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

This complaint is out of time and is therefore statute barred.

Signed contract of employment, notice entitlements.