ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00051039
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Katie Carville | Mulholland Law Mulholland Law |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00062456-001 | 27/03/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00062456-002 | 27/03/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00062456-003 | 27/03/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/09/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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 complaint.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant and two witnesses for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation. An additional witness for the respondent undertook to give his evidence under oath. Cross examination was facilitated for both parties. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00062456-001 Terms of Employment The complainant submitted that the respondent failed to provide her with terms and conditions of employment in writing, despite several requests to do so. CA-00062456-002 Terms of Employment The complainant submitted that the respondent failed to provide her with terms and conditions of employment in writing when her role changed. CA-00062456-003 Terms of Employment The complainant submitted that the respondent failed to provide her with core terms and conditions of employment in writing. The complainant confirmed in evidence that she was employed by the respondent for less than a calendar month. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As a preliminary matter, the respondent submitted that as the complainant was not employed for more than a calendar month, she was not eligible to pursue a complaint under the Act. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The respondent submitted that the complainant was not eligible to pursue a complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. The Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2018 amended the principal act as follows: 6. Section 2 of the Act of 1994 is amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1): “(1) This Act, other than section 3(1A), shall not apply to employment in which the employee has been in the continuous service of the employer for less than 1 month.”. The complainant confirmed that she did not have one month’s service. I note that the respondent complied with Section 3(1A) of the act when it provided the complainant with her core terms and conditions in writing, and that the document was submitted in advance of the hearing. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the Act does not apply in relation to complaint CA-00062456-001 and CA-00062456-003. As the complainant was provided with her core terms and conditions of employment at the start of her employment, I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
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.
Having regard to the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that the Act does not apply in relation to complaint CA-00062456-001 and CA-00062456-003 in respect of this complainant. Having regard to the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complaint CA-00062456-002 is not well founded. |
Dated: 13th June 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Terms of Employment – Exemptions to the Act – does not apply where less than one month’s service – Core terms complaint not well founded |