|
TE/25/30 |
DECISION NO. TED2624
|
SECTION 44, WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
SECTION 8 (1), TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT (INFORMATION) ACTS, 1994 TO 2014
PARTIES:
LCCL LIMITED T/A HAIR DESIGN & BEAUTY SALON
AND
MS XIN HU
DIVISION:
| Chairman: | Mr Haugh |
| Employer Member: | Mr Marie |
| Worker Member: | Ms Hannick |
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00056061 (CA-00068328-001)
BACKGROUND:
The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 8 April 2025 in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2012.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30 January 2026.
The following is the Decision of the Court.
DECISION:
Background to the Appeal
This is an appeal by Ms Xin Hu (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00056061/CA-00068328-001, dated 26 March 2025) under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 8 April 2025. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 30 January 2026.
Factual Background
The Complainant was employed by LCCL Limited T/A Hair Design & Beauty Salon (‘the Respondent’) between 8 August 2024 and 22 December 2024.
Complaint under the Act
The Complainant submits that she was not provided with a written statement of terms and conditions by the Respondent at any stage during her period of employment. The claim is conceded on behalf of the Respondent.
Conflict of Evidence
The Complainant told the Court that she typically worked ten-hour days, five or six days per week, for the Respondent and was paid €160.00 per day in cash. She produced a handwritten note which she says is an accurate and contemporaneous account of the hours and days on which she worked. The Respondent produced copy payslips that show the Complaint working 20 hours per week at €12.70 per hour. The Complainant informed the Court that she first had sight of those payslips after the hearing before the Workplace Relations Commission. No corroborating evidence was produced at the within hearing that verified the accuracy of the payslips. The Respondent sought to introduce a letter from the company’s accountant. However, such a letter is mere hearsay.
Discussion and Decision
As the claim has been conceded on behalf of the Respondent, the Court must find in favour of the Complainant. It is not possible to reconcile the parties’ conflicting evidence in relation to the Complainant’s weekly rate of pay. In the circumstances, the Court measures the compensation payable under the Act at €2,000.00.
The Court so decides.
 |
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court |
|
|
|
Alan Haugh |
| FC | ______________________ |
| 09 February 2026 | Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.