TED2617

TE/25/107

DECISION  NO.  TED2617

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

Chairman:	Ms. McGowan
Employer Member:	Mr. O'Brien
Worker Member:	Ms. Hannick

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00051352 (CA-00062898-001).

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 2 December 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 24 July 2026. 

The following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

1. Appeal Details

This is an appeal by Ziggy Investments Limited trading as Eddie Rockets, against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00051352/CA-00062898-001) made under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 to 2014 (the Act) in a complaint by Ms Denisa Stefania Costea.

For ease, the parties are referred to in the same way as at first instance, so Ms Costea is referred to as “the Complainant” and Ziggy Investments Limited trading as Eddie Rockets as “the Respondent”. This appeal is linked to another appeal under the Act (TE/25/108 Decision No. TED2618).

It was the Complainant’s case at the Workplace Relations Commission (the WRC) that she was not provided with a written statement of her terms of employment by the Respondent, despite having requested same, in breach of section 3(1A) of the Act. The Respondent did not attend the hearing at the WRC. The Adjudication Officer decided, in a decision dated 18 November 2025, that the complaint (CA-00062898-001) was well founded and awarded €1,422 (four weeks’ remuneration), payable as compensation.

The Respondent appealed the decision of the Adjudication Officer, by lodging a Notice of Appeal received by the Labour Court on 21 November 2025 and paying a fee of €300 on the same date.

A hybrid hearing of the Court was held on 24 July 2026 in Dublin, with the Complainant dialling in by video link. The Complainant was represented by Mr Marius Marosan at the hearing and the Respondent was represented by Mr Brian Dunne, shareholder and Managing Director. The Court received written submissions in advance of the hearing and heard submissions from both parties at the hearing. The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation and Mr Dunne gave evidence under oath.

2. Summary Submission of the Complainant

The Complainant started working for the Respondent on 15 October 2023 as a waitress, working an average of 28 hours/week and was paid €12.70/hour. The Complainant did not receive a statement of her core terms of employment, which she was supposed to receive within five days of starting her employment, in breach of section 3(1A) of the Act, and neither did she receive it after one month of employment. Despite repeated requests, verbally and by email the Complainant never received her statement of terms in breach of section 3 of the Act. The Complainant considers that she should receive the maximum compensation as a deterrent, in reliance on Sabine von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, Case 14/83, [1984] ECR 1891.

The Complainant identified the Respondent as her employer based on sight of an employment contract for a friend of hers, dated October 2022, which named the Respondent as the friend’s employer and referenced the “Phibsborough” restaurant as one of the locations to which the friend could have been assigned, in addition to Swords, Clarehall, and Charlestown. The Complainant’s payslips identified Eddie Rockets as the employer.

3. Summary of the Complainant’s Evidence

The Complainant said she commenced employment in Eddie Rockets Phibsboro on 15 October 2023 having attended at the restaurant for the purpose of seeking employment. She said that she had accepted the job on the basis that it was full-time but she did not receive full-time hours. She said that she never got more than 25/26 hours per week. The Complainant said that she never got a contract of employment, despite asking for it, on more than one occasion, and she was never given a reason why it was not provided. The Complainant said that she never knew the name of her employer but that her friend, who worked in the Charlestown restaurant, had given her a copy of her contract which identified the Respondent as the friend’s employer. The Complainant’s evidence was that her payslips had Eddie Rockets as the name of her employer.

4. Summary Submission of the Respondent

The Respondent’s position is that it was not and never had been the Complainant’s employer. The Respondent had never operated the Eddie Rockets’ franchise in Phibsboro, but it had been operated by another company which had been owned by the previous owner of the Respondent which may have explained the Complainant’s confusion.

5. Summary of the Evidence of Brian Dunne, Managing Director of the Respondent

Mr Dunne (the witness) said that he bought the shareholding in the Respondent company from the previous shareholders (the Deegan family) in June 2024, at a time when the company was facing liquidation. He spoke with the previous shareholder on the Friday and completed the purchase of the shareholding on the following Monday, without carrying out due diligence. The witness said that he had been provided with a list of employees (and of assets and liabilities) and the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent before or after he acquired the shareholding. When the witness bought the company the Respondent only had two restaurants, one in Clarehall and one in Charlestown. He said that the Respondent had never owned the Phibsboro restaurant, but that it had been owned by another company, which had also been owned by the Deegan family. The witness thought that the Phibsboro restaurant had been handed over to the franchisor, Eddie Rockets Ireland.

Prior to Mr Dunne acquiring the shareholding of the Respondent company, the Respondent had also owned the Swords franchise for Eddie Rockets but this restaurant had been taken over by the franchisor. The witness said that the Respondent traded in the two restaurants (Clarehall and Charlestown) until April 2026, after which they were handed over to the franchisor. The witness said that the Respondent is no longer trading but remains on the register of companies at the Companies Office. In respect of the contract provided by the Complainant the witness says he could not explain why the Phibsboro restaurant was listed alongside Clarehall, Swords, and Charlestown as the Respondent had never owned Phibsboro. He speculated that the Deegan family used one contract in respect of both companies.

6. Relevant Legislation

Section 3 of the Act provides as follows:

“(1) An employer shall not later than one month 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…”

with specific reference to a multiplicity of particulars required to be provided..

Section 3(1A) provides that:

“Without prejudice to subsection (1), an employer shall, not later than 5 days 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 employee’s employment”

including inter alia full names of the employer and the employee, the address of the employer in the State, duration of a temporary contract, remuneration, number of hours of work, place of work, and title, grade, nature or category of work for which the employee is employed.

In the interpretation section of the Act, an “employee” is defined as meaning:

“a person who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment and references, in relation to an employer, to an employee shall be construed as references to an employee employed by that employer… ”.

A “contract of employment” is defined as meaning:

“(a) a contract of service or apprenticeship, or

(b) any other contract whereby –

(i) an individual agrees with another person personally to execute any work or service for that person, or

(ii) an individual agrees with a person carrying on the business of an employment agency within the meaning of the Employment Agency Act 1971 to do or perform personally any work or service for another person (whether or not the other person is party to the contract),

whether the contract is express or implied and, if express, whether oral or written.”

An “employer” is defined as meaning:

“in relation to an employee, means the person with whom the employee has entered into or for whom the employee works under (or where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment subject to the qualification that the person who under a contract of employment referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of “contract of employment” is liable to pay the wages of the individual concerned in respect of the work or service concerned shall be deemed to be the individual’s employer”.

Proceedings under the Act are initiated, pursuant to section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (the 2015 Act), by “an employee” presenting a complaint to the Director General [of the WRC] “that the employee’s employer has contravened a provision specified in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 5 in relation to the employee”. Section 3 of the Act is specified at No. 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the 2015 Act.

7. Deliberations

The Complainant asserts that she was employed by the Respondent and that she did not receive, from the Respondent, a written statement of terms of her employment in breach of section 3(1) and 3(1A) of the Act. The burden of proof in establishing that she was an employee of the Respondent rests with the Complainant before any consideration of a breach of the Act, as alleged, can be considered by the Court.

The Complainant provided no evidence that the Respondent was her employer at the material time. On her account the employer named on her payslips was Eddie Rockets and not the Respondent. The Complainant’s representative confirmed that no effort was made to establish the identity of the employer from the employer registered number on the Complainant’s payslip. The contract provided to the Court was of no assistance as it did not relate to the Complainant or to the relevant time period and referenced a restaurant (Swords), which based on the Respondent’s sworn evidence, had been but, at the time he took over the business, was no longer in the control of the Respondent. Mr Dunne’s evidence was that the Swords restaurant had been handed over to the franchisor Eddie Rockets, which name corresponded to the name of the Complainant’s payslip. While the witness for the Respondent was not the owner at the material time he gave uncontradicted evidence that the Respondent had never owned the restaurant where the Complainant worked.

Mr Dunne’s evidence that the Respondent was not the Complainant’s employer, at the material time or at all, is accepted by the Court in the absence of any evidence from the Complainant that the Respondent was her employer, and in the face of the payslip evidence that another party was her employer. The fact that another party was named on the Complainant's payslips was particularly persuasive to the Court.

Where the Complainant has not been able to provide any evidence that she had a contract of employment with the Respondent, or that she was an employee of the Respondent and the Respondent her employer at the material time or at all, the Court is not satisfied that the Complainant is entitled to the protection of the Act in respect of the named Respondent. The protections afforded under section 7 of the Act (and section 8 on appeal) are limited to employees who have relevant claims against their employers. Where the Complainant has presented a complaint against a party who is not her employer she is not entitled to redress under the Act.

In circumstances where the Court concludes that the Complainant is not an employee of the Respondent the substantive issue as to whether the Complainant received a written statement of terms cannot be considered by the Court.

8. Decision

The Court is not satisfied that the Complainant has established that she is an employee of the Respondent and the Respondent is her employer within the meaning of the Act, or otherwise or at all. The Complainant is not entitled to succeed, in her claim under the Act, against the Respondent named in the decision of the Adjudication Officer.

The Court sets aside the decision of the Adjudication Officer bearing Adjudication Reference Number ADJ-00051352 and Complaint Reference Number CA-00062898-001, dated 18 November 2025.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Niamh McGowan
TH	______________________
12/10/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be in writing and addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.