ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048098

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Hannah Finegan	Shoe City

Representatives

Simon McArdle McKenna McArdle Solicitors LLP

Complaint(s):

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-00059007-001	25/09/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/02/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

The matter was heard by way of remote hearing on 12 February 2024, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021, the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, that testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties. Full cross examination of witnesses was allowed.

Background:

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on a part-time basis on 6 July 2022 as a store assistant. Her employment ended on 11 September 2023. The Complainant was paid €103.29 per week. For a 10-hour week.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant’s representative, her father, Mr Mark Finnegan, gave evidence at the hearing on Oath.

The Representative stated that the Complainant was never provided with a contract of employment, despite asking on several occasions for a contract of employment to be issued to her.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent’s representative accepted that the Respondent had not supplied the Complainant with her core terms of employment and wholly accepted that not all the terms of employment had been issued to the Complainant. The Respondent was in the process of issuing contracts to its employees.

Findings and Conclusions:

Section 3 (1) of this Act states, "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."

Section 7 of the Act, states:

7. — (1) An employee shall not be entitled to present a complaint under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in respect of a contravention of section 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 , if the employer concerned has —

( a ) complied with a direction under section 6A given in relation to the contravention F11 [ before, on or after the commencement of section 8 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 ] , or

( b ) been given a direction under that section in relation to the contravention and the period specified in the direction within which he or she is required to comply with the direction has not yet expired.

(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 or 6 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 or 6 , 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 ) 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 . ]

It is clear from the evidence that the Complainant was never provided with anything approaching a written contract of employment as required. All employers must take their responsibilities seriously; this did not happen in this case, and I find in the Complainant’s favour.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I find the Complaint herein to be well founded and I direct a payment of compensation in the amount of € 413.16 which I find is just and equitable in all the circumstances.

Dated: 21st March 2024.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath

Key Words:

Contract of Employment