TED2318

TE/23/63

DECISION  No. TED2318

SECTION 44, WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015

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

PARTIES:

Dolphin Brothers Renewable Energies Aleden Contracts

AND

Lucas Augusto De Lorenzo

DIVISION

 Chairman: Mr Haugh

 Employer Member:  Mr Murphy

 Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SUBJECT

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00044896 (CA-00054994-002)

BACKGROUND

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 7 September 2023 in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2014.  A Labour Court hearing took place on 17 November 2023. The following is the Decision of the Court:

DECISION

Background to the Appeal
This is an appeal by Mr Lucas Augusto de Lorenzo ('the Complainant') from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00044896/CA-000554994-002, dated 1 August 2023) under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 ('the Act'). The Complainant did not appear before the Adjudication Officer and, on that basis, the Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was not well-founded. The Complainant's Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 7 September 2023. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 17 November 2023.

Factual Background
The Complainant was employed by Dolphin Brothers Renewable Energies Limited ('the Respondent') as an Engineer between 26 January 2022 and 12 January 2023. The Complainant's base salary by the latter date was €60,000.00 gross per annum.

Submissions
The Complainant submits that the Respondent, at no stage during his employment, furnished him with a written statement of terms and conditions of employment as required under the Act. The Respondent exhibited a copy contract in its papers and submits that Mr Dolphin, one of the Respondent's directors, handed two copies of this contract signed on behalf of the Respondent to the Complainant during the first two weeks of his employment with a request to return one copy, signed by him, to the company. According to the Respondent, the Complainant did not return the signed contract as requested.

Discussion and Decision
There is a direct conflict of evidence between the Parties in relation to the matter of whether or not the Complainant received the written statement of terms and conditions he was entitled to receive under the Act. The Court has had the opportunity to review several documents, including mortgage applications, completed by the Respondent on the Complainant's behalf. It is apparent to the Court that the Respondent took exceptional care when completing those detailed documents. On the basis of the diligence clearly exhibited by the Respondent in those matters, in respect of which the Respondent had no obligation, the Court is of the view that it was more probable than not that the Respondent was at least equally diligent in attending to its statutory obligations under the Act.
The Court, therefore, determines that the within appeal does not succeed. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld accordingly.
The Court so decides.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be in writing  and addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.