EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
Regina Stasytiene PW313/2013
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
Anora Commerical Limited
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991
TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT (INFORMATION) ACT, 1994 AND 2001
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. P. McGrath BL
Members: Mr. T. O’Sullivan
Ms. M. Mulcahy
heard this appeal at Dublin on 3rd September 2014
Appellant(s) : Richard Grogan & Associates, 16 & 17, College Green, Dublin 2
Respondent(s) : Michael McGrath, IBEC, Confederation House,
84/86, Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2
This case came before the Tribunal by way of an appeal by an employee (appellant) appealing against the recommendations of the Rights Commissioner reference numbers: r-130150-pw-13/MMG and r-128890-te-13/MMG.
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
At the outset the appeal under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 was withdrawn.
The matter comes before the Employment Appeals Tribunal on foot of an appeal from the Rights Commissioners dated the 13th April 2013. The Claimant commenced her employment in April of 2009. The Claimant was provided with a contract of employment at the time. This contract was updated in 2010 in line with a promotion and change in salary. The contract of employment discloses the existence of an employee handbook with further details pertinent to the workplace contained therein.
The Claimant herein seeks a finding by this Tribunal that the Respondent company has failed to comply with Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 in not providing the Claimant with information regarding what are perceived to be essential aspects of the contract of employment.
In particular, the Claimant point out that the contract is silent on the required information on rest periods and breaks as provided for in the Statutory Instrument 49 of 1998 and the contract does not notify the Claimant of her entitlement to seek a written statement of her average hourly rate of pay as provided for under the National Minimum Wage Act of 2000.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the contract is silent on these two statutory requirements and must therefore find that the respondent acted in breach of it’s requirements and obligations as employers. It is worth noting that the employee handbook purportedly outlines the requirements regarding the breaks and rest periods. This was not contradicted by the Claimant and whilst the handbook is not the contract of employment, the Tribunal is satisfied the information was readily available and therefore no particular prejudice applied.
The failure to advise the Claimant of her rights under Section 3 (g) and (ga) is unfortunate and should have been remedied at the earliest possible time but again no particular hardship or prejudice has arisen and the Tribunal declines to a compensatory award.
The last point made by the Claimant is the inaccuracy in naming the employer wherein the name of the hotel in which the Claimant was employed is named as employer whereas in fact the actual employer is, unsurprisingly, an incorporated entity. The incorporated entity was well known to the Claimant as the name appeared on her payslips. The Tribunal accepts that it’s preferable that the full name and accurate name of an employer should be given and not just its trading name. It is the case of all employees that they should know and recognise the entity who employs them. This should be updated as and when circumstances demand, as happened in this instance when the Respondent became the correct employer. However, the tribunal cannot find that there has been a breach under Section 3 as at all times the Claimant knew who her employer was.
The Claimant’s appeal fails and the findings of the Right Commissioners are affirmed.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal