TED2620

TE/25/55

DECISION  NO.  TED2620

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

Chairman:	Ms McGowan
Employer Member:	Mr Marie
Worker Member:	Ms Hannick

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00052840 (CA-00064740-002)

BACKGROUND:

The Employee appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 16 June 2025 in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.  A Labour Court hearing took place on 4 August 2026. 

The following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

1. Appeal Details

This is an appeal by Ms Róisín Bohan against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00052840/CA-000664740-002), dated 4 September 2025, made under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 to 2014 (the Act) in a complaint against Core Auction Ventures Limited trading as South Dublin Auction, which concluded that the complaint was not well founded. This appeal is linked to an appeal under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015 (UD/25/73 Decision No. UDD2638) and an appeal under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 PW/25/62 Decision No. PWD2630)

For ease, the parties are referred to in the same way as at first instance, so Ms Bohanis referred to as “the Complainant” and Core Auction Ventures Limited trading as South Dublin Auction as “the Respondent”. The Complainant did not attend the hearing before the Workplace Relations Commission.

A hearing of the Court was held on 4 August 2026 in Dublin, with the Complainant attending unaccompanied and unrepresented. The Respondent was represented by its Managing Director, Mr Ross Graham. The Court received written submissions in advance of the hearing and heard submissions from both parties at the hearing. The Complainant and Mr Graham gave evidence under oath.

2. Summary Submission and Evidence of the Complainant

The Complainant worked as an administrative assistant for the Respondent, with an annual salary of €28,288, from 27 February 2023 until her dismissal on 15 March 2024.

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 a statement in writing containing the terms of her employment within one month of employment. She never received any written statement of her terms of employment while employed with the Respondent.

3. Summary Submission and Evidence of the Respondent

The Respondent’s position was that the Complainant commenced employment as a part-time administrative assistant on 27 February 2023 but ceased employment on 24 March 2023. She rejoined on 24 April 2023 and her employment terminated on 15 March 2024. It was accepted that the Respondent did not provide the Complainant with a written statement of her terms of employment at any time during the course of her employment. The Respondent noted that all current employees have signed contracts of employment on file.

4. 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.

Section 7(1A)(a) provides that “unless the employee has been in the continuous service of the employer for more than 1 month” that employee shall not be entitled to present a complaint in respect of a contravention of section 3(1A).

Section 7(2) of the Act provides that: “a decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 3, 4, 5, 6, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F or 6G shall do one or more of the following, namely:

• declare that the complaint was, or as the case may be, was not well founded,
• either-
  • confirm all or any of the particulars contained or referred to in any statement furnished by the employer under section 3, 4, 5, 6, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F or 6G, or
  • alter or add to any such statement for the purpose of correcting any inaccuracy or omission in the statement and the statement as so altered or added to shall be deemed to be given to the employee by the employer,
• require the employer to give or cause to be given to the employee concerned a written statement containing such particulars as may be specified by the adjudication officer,
• in relation to a complaint of a contravention under section 3, 4, 5, 6, 6D, 6E, 6F, or 6G, and without prejudice to any order made under paragraph (e) order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
• In relation to a complaint of a contravention under section 6C, and without prejudice to any order made under paragraph (d), order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.”

Section 8 of the Act provides that: “A decision of the Labour Court under section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, on appeal from a decision of an adjudication officer referred to in section 7, shall affirm, vary or set aside the decision of the adjudication officer.”

5. Deliberations

It was not disputed that the Complainant was an employee of the Respondent during the material time albeit there was a dispute as to the period of employment. The Complainant’s evidence was that she was employed by the Respondent from 27 February 2023 until she was dismissed from her employment on 15 March 2024 and that she did not receive, from the Respondent, a written statement of terms of her employment at any time during the course of her employment in breach of section 3(1) and 3(1A) of the Act. The Respondent disputed the duration of the Complainant’s employment contending that she had broken her service and only had continuous service from 24 April 2023 to 15 March 2024. Section 7(1A) requires an employee to have continuous service of more than one month before being entitled to present a complaint in respect of a contravention of section 3(1A) of the Act. It was not disputed that the Complainant’s service exceeded this minimum service requirement. The Respondent did not dispute that a written statement of terms was not provided to the Complainant within five days as set out in section 3(1A) or within one month as set out in section 3(1) of the Act, or at all.

The Court is satisfied, based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, that the Respondent has breached section 3(1) and 3(1A) of the Act in failing to provide any written statement of terms of employment to the Complainant within five days, one month, or at any time during the course of her employment.

Section 7 of the Act provides for the redress that may be ordered in respect of such a breach. In circumstances where the relationship has ended the Court does not consider redress under section 7(2)(b) or (c) to be appropriate. Section 7(2)(d) provides that compensation up to a maximum of four weeks’ remuneration is provided for in respect of breaches of section 3. The Court considers that the wording of section 7(2)(d) limits an employee to one award of compensation notwithstanding that two breaches of section 3 have been identified. In reaching that conclusion the Court has had regard to the provisions of section 7(2)(e) which expressly provides for specific compensation of a further maximum sum of four weeks’ remuneration, where there has been a breach of section 6C even where compensation may already have been ordered under section 7(2)(d) for other breaches of the Act. No such exception is identified for section 3 breaches.

6. Decision

As a breach of section 3(1) and 3(1A) has been demonstrated to the Court, the Court’s decision is to set aside the decision of the Adjudication Officer, dated 4 September 2025, bearing Adjudication Reference No. ADJ-00052840 and Complaint Reference No. CA-00064740-002, which corrected an original decision dated 9 May 2025, which had found the Complainant’s complaint to be not well founded. In circumstances where no written statement was provided at all the Court considers it just and equitable, having regard to all the circumstances, to award the Complainant compensation of the equivalent of three weeks’ remuneration which is the sum of €1,632.00. For the avoidance of doubt the payment is a compensation payment in respect of which statutory deductions are not required to be made.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Niamh McGowan
CC	______________________
22/10/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.