EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS OF: CASE NO.
Employee – Appellant 1 PW681/2012
TE231/2012
Employee – Appellant 2 PW682/2012
TE232/2012
Employee – Appellant 3 PW683/2012
TE233/2012
Employee – Appellant 4 PW684/2012
TE234/2012
against decisions and recommendations of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
Employer – Respondent
under
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991
TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT (INFORMATION) ACTS 1994 AND 2001
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms P. McGrath BL
Members: Mr J. Horan
Mr J. Flannery
heard this appeal at Dublin on 13th January 2014
Representation:
Appellants: Mr Richard Grogan of Richard Grogan & Associates,
16 – 17 College Green, Dublin 2
Respondent: Francis Brophy & Company, Chartered Accountants,
8 – 9 Marino Mart, Fairview, Dublin 3
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
This appeal came before the Tribunal by way of 4 employees appealing against decision and a recommendation of the Rights Commissioner dated 30 August 2012 reference numbers r-075338-pw-09/GC, r-074796-pw-09/GC, r-075656-pw-09/GC, r-075063-pw-09/GC, r-075342-te-09/GC, r-074797-te-09/GC, r-075658-te-09/GC and r-075064-te-09/GC.
Appellant 3 did not attend the Hearing and accordingly his appeals failed for want of prosecution and the decision and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner are upheld in these cases.
The appellants’ representative told the Tribunal that he was not pursuing the appeals under the Payment of Wages Act because the matter involved a Registered Employment Agreement, and as such Agreements were now invalid he could not continue with the appeals. Accordingly the Tribunal refused jurisdiction for these appeals.
Determination
The Tribunal has carefully considered the legal submissions made by both parties in the matter of the appeal herein under the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1991 and 2001.
The parties agree that the three appellants each had a Contract of Employment which was largely compliant with the notice envisaged under the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, giving the names of the parties, the nature of the work, the rate of remuneration and other details that were well known to the appellants.
On behalf of the appellants it has been argued that the Contracts do not go into sufficient detail on those matters relating to minimum rest periods breaks and minimum periods allowed between shifts as outlined in Sections 11 & 13 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and which details are required to be outlined in the Terms of employment Notice required under Terms of Employment (Information) Acts and are so directed to be included in S.I. 49/1998 Terms of Employment (Additional Information) Order 1998.
In addition the appellants have argued that there is no pay reference period, specified, which is another detail which is compulsorily demanded of the employer in preparing a Terms of Employment Notice, pursuant to the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000.
The Tribunal has considered the arguments made and have also considered the Contract of Employment applicable to the appellants in the course of their employment which purports to be full notice as envisaged under the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the employer gave some detail in the Contract of Employment and in this regard paragraph (i) does set out some of the minimum terms regarding rest periods and rest breaks.
The Tribunal accepts that reading paragraphs (f) & (i) of the Contract of Employment, together, gives sufficient detail to the employees of the employer’s expectations of the employees in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and under the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 and inserted into the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts by S.I. 49 of 1998.
Accordingly the appeals under the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994 and 2001 fail and the recommendations of the Rights Commissioners are upheld.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)