Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jose David  Sierralta Madriz

A.P. Haslam Limited

Representatives

 Self Reresented

Keith Haslam, Director of Respondent

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-00070098-001

19/03/2025

The Complainant was employed as a Workshop Operative with the Respondent, whose business is the provision of industrial electrical components and solutions, from the 19th of February 2024 to the 30th of June 2025. The Complainant initiated several claims, one of which, bearing claim reference CA-00070098-001, which is made pursuant to  the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (as amended) (“The TE Act”) is the subject matter of the present decision.

The claim was initiated by the Complainant by way of a Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) Complaint received by the WRC on the 19th of March 2025which made the following submission:

“I started working for APHASLAM on February 19th, 2024. During my interview, I was promised a permanent contract after a reasonable timeframe, as well as a pay rise following the completion of my probation period. Once I passed my probation, I requested both the contract and the promised pay rise. However, the response I received was filled with excuses, such as "we are still waiting to finalize the contracts" or "you haven’t received it because we’re in the process of changing our office address to a new branch in Ballymount."

Despite following up repeatedly over the past few months and insisting on the matter, I have still not received a contract. The only documents I have been provided with are a confirmation letter stating that I work for the company and an offer letter, which does not accurately reflect the actual terms and conditions of my employment.

This situation has caused me continuous stress and uncertainty, as the lack of a formal contract leaves me feeling insecure about my job. It also affects my ability to rent a property, as landlords often require proof of stable employment, and it complicates processes for securing loans or credit cards, as financial institutions typically ask for proof of a formal contract. These issues are adding to my ongoing anxiety and instability, as they have a direct impact on my personal and financial well-being.

Despite my continuous requests, it appears there is no intention from the company to provide me with a written contract.” 

Following and as a result of the claim made to the WRC in March 2025, an incident of intimidation took place. An important client of the Respondent was expected to visit the workshop and the Complainant and the Complainant and his colleagues were advised that if anyone disclosed the situation regarding the dispute over contracts, that person would be immediately dismissed.  This threat created an extremely hostile and intimidating environment.

In a written submission delivered in advance of the hearing the Respondent contended as follows:

Terms & Conditions of Employment

• The Respondent accepts that the Complainant was not issued with his written Terms & Conditions of Employment within one month of his start date, as required under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.
• In April 2025, the Respondent’s HR Administrator attempted to rectify the matter by issuing the Terms & Conditions of Employment to each Team Member, however, the Complainant declined to accept this Contract of Employment.
• The Respondent, in an effort to resolve the matter amicably outside of the Workplace Relations Commission, offered the employee a payment equivalent to four weeks’ pay. The Complainant did not accept this offer.
• The Respondent can confirm the Complainant is no longer an employee of AP Haslam Ltd.

• The Respondent can confirm that the Company did not advise the Complainant that should he speak to [Clients] regarding the processes going on within the Company that this would be taken as Gross Misconduct and they would be terminated. The Respondent can confirm that they cannot control what their Team Leaders or Managers say to employees on every occasion however it would not be the Respondent’s intention to take action on a Team Member for speaking to any rep onsite. The Respondent can also confirm that there is no evidence to provide that the Manger did not want him to speak to the Client.
• The Respondent can confirm that he followed up with another team member via phone call to discuss these concerns and believes that they were resolved. The Respondent can also confirm that he followed up with the manager in question and told him he shouldn’t have said that.

·         The Respondent does not dispute that the employee did not receive their written Terms and Conditions of Employment within the required timeframe.

·         The Respondent does however submit that the Company acted in good faith to address the matter and made genuine attempts to resolve it without recourse to the Workplace Relations Commission.

Evidence

The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation. He only got a contract because he complained about not having received a contract. He sustained a financial loss as a result of not having a contract as he needed a formal contract of employment to secure credit. He also felt vulnerable and insecure in his job, and he was constantly in fear of getting fired. When the Respondent did provide the Complainant with a contract, he did not agree that it correctly reflected his terms of employment. He saw another employee’s contract and this contract, unlike the one given to him, did not contain a redundancy clause. He feared that if he signed the contract it would be easier for the Respondent to dismiss him. He refused to sign this contract.

After the Complainant complained about not getting a contract his working environment became hostile. He was being put under pressure with regard to his work and his toilet breaks were being monitored. He initiated the present clam to the WRC in March 2025. He said that following the initiation of this claim, on the 25th of April 2025, an important client of the Respondent was expected to visit the workshop. The Complainant and his colleagues were told by their line manager, the Workshop Manager that if any of them mentioned the dispute over contracts to the visiting client this would result in dismissal for gross misconduct. The Complainant’s Team Leader reported the Workshop Manager’s behaviour to Mr. Haslam by text on the 25th of April 2025. Nobody spoke to the Complainant about the issue since and it was the Complainant’s view that the incident required management of the Respondent to have a conversation with him personally. The Complainant did not make any further complaint about the incident as he feared that he would be dismissed if he did.

The Complainant alleged that in addition to breaching the Act by not providing him with written terms of employment the Respondent was also guilty of penalisation against him for having asserted his rights under the Act. 

The Respondent was represented by Mr Keith Haslam, a director of the Respondent who made submissions and gave evidence on behalf Respondent. Mr. Haslam confirmed that the Respondent accepted that it did not comply with the Act Mr. Haslam said that when he received the complaint from the team leader about the Worksop Manager he soke to the Workshop Manager and told him that he had no right to say what he had said to the guys and that he should noy have done so, that the incident should never have happened. He advised the Workshop Manager that there would be no gross misconduct even if people did speak to the client. The witness did not speak to the Complainant directly himself and he said that in hindsight he should have told everyone involved that what the Workshop Manager had said was wrong. The witness explained that he was unaware of the monitoring of toilet breaks as he was based at the Respondent’s other location and he was not there very often.

Applicable Statutory Provisions

Section 3(1) of the TE Act provides that,

“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”

The TE Act then lists the matters in respect of which an employee is entitled to receive written terms.

Section 3 A (as inserted by reg.6 of the European Union (Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions) Regulations 2022 (S.I. No. 686 of 2022)) provides that

A statement furnished by an employer under section 3,4, 5,6, 6E or 6F shall be—

(a) signed and dated by or on behalf of the employer,

(b) in writing, and

(c) transmitted on paper or, provided that the information is accessible to the employee, that it can be stored and printed, and that the employer retains proof of transmission or receipt, in electronic form.

Section 6C subsection (1) prohibits penalisation as follows:

“An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation of a employee for—

(a) invoking any right conferred on him or her by this Act,

(b) having in good faith opposed by lawful means an act that is unlawful under this Act,

(c) giving evidence in any proceedings under this Act, or

(d) giving notice of his or her intention to do any of the things referred to in the preceding paragraphs.

Section 6C subsection (5) defines “penalisation” as

“any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects an employee to his or her detriment with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—

(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015), or the threat of suspension, lay-off or dismissal,

(b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion,

(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours,

(d) imposition or the administering of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty), and

(e) coercion or intimidation.”

Findings Based on the Evidence

The Respondent accepted that written terms were not provided to the Complainant in compliance with the Act and thus a breach of Section 3 is established and this claim is well-founded. Moreover, I accept the Complainant’s evidence which was not challenged, that he sustained loss I the form of being unable to provide a contract of employment in order to secure finance and further that he felt vulnerable and uncertain as to his employment as a result.

The Complainant’s evidence regarding the threat of dismissal made by the Workshop Manager and also the excessive monitoring of toilet breaks was also unchallenged in evidence as was the Complainant’s allegation that such conduct arose a direct result of the assertion by him of his rights under the Act. In such circumstances I find that the Complainant was intimidated within the meaning of Section 6C (5) (e) and that he was penalised within the meaning of that term in Section 6 C (1). Accordingly, the claim of penalisation is well-founded.   

Redress:

Section 7 (2) of the TE Act provides as follows: 

“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—…

… (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.

(e) in relation to a complaint of a contravention under section 6C, and without prejudice to any order made under paragraph (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.”

The Respondent accepted that Section 3 was breached and suffered loss as a result. Accordingly, I deem compensation of four weeks’ pay to be just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances.

Furthermore, I have found that the Complainant was penalised by the Respondent in contravention of Section 6 C. In such circumstances I award the Complainant compensation of a further four weeks pay in respect of the breach of Section 6C.

It was agreed that the appropriate figure in respect of one week’s pay is €600 and thus the Respondent is directed to pay compensation to the Complainant in the total sum of €4,800. This figure represents compensation for breach of the Complainant’s statutory rights as distinct from remuneration or remuneration related compensation and is therefore not subject to tax or other deduction.

CA 00070098-001 – The Claims are well-founded. The Respondent shall pay to the Complainant the sum of €4,800 by way of non-remuneration-based compensation for breach of the Complainant’s statutory rights.

Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (as amended) – Sections (3), Section (6C), Section 7 - Penalisation