TED2112

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 8 (1), TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT (INFORMATION) ACTS, 1994 TO 2014

PARTIES :

IMTIAZ AHMED RANJHA SKY SOLICITORS

- AND -

IMTIAZ KHAN
(REPRESENTED BY CAOIMHE RUIGROK B.L.
INSTRUCTED BY G N & CO SOLICITORS

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s) ADJ-00020327, CA-00026759-002

BACKGROUND:

2. The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 3 August 2020 in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2014. A remote Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on 26 January 2021. The following is the Determination of the Court:-

DETERMINATION :

This is an appeal by Imtiaz Ranjha in the style and practice of Sky Solicitors against an Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00020327 given under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (the Act) in a claim by Imtiaz Khan that he did not receive a contract and was not provided with his terms and conditions of employment contrary to the Act. The Adjudication Officer found the complaint to be well founded and awarded redress of €1,800.

In line with the normal practice of the Court, the parties are referred to in this Determination as they were at first instance. Hence, Imtiaz Khan is referred to as the Complainant and Imtiaz Ranjha in the style and practice of Sky Solicitors is referred to as the Respondent.

There were a number of key facts in dispute in this case. The Respondent did not accept that the correct employer had been named. In response to that, the Complainant sought to make an application under section 39 of the Organisation of Working Time Act to change the name of the employer. The Respondent did not accept that the Complainant was an employee.

This complaint is linked to MWA/20/11 where the Court has determined that a) the correct employer had been identified and b) the Complainant was an employee of the Respondent for the period 7^th August 2017 to 4^th October 2018. The Respondent did not dispute that he had not supplied the Complainant with a contract of employment, or a statement as required by section 3 of the Act .

The Respondent submitted that he did not consider the Complainant to be an employee and therefore did not consider that he was covered by the Act.

The Court having carefully read the submissions and listened to the oral submissions on the day determines that compensation in the amount of €1,800 should be paid in respect of the breach of the Act. The appeal fails. The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so determines

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Elaine McNeela, Court Secretary.