ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026151
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Contracts Manager | A respondent |
Representatives | Self | Gerard Nevin, Keaney Nevin Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00033294-001 | 17/12/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/08/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The respondent confirmed the correct name during the hearing rather than the colloquial name that all parties referred to and accepted that it was the appropriate respondent in this matter. The complainant was employed as Contracts Manager with the respondent from April 2013 until 28 August 2019. The complainant was paid basic rate of pay of €1,356.78 per week and was given a weekly unvouched subsistence allowance of €181.68 per week. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that he when he first commenced employment with the respondent he sought a salary of €90,000 p.a. plus an annual €10,000 bonus. In the course of negotiations, he was prepared to accept a lower rate of salary c.€80,000 comprising basic plus a subsistence allowance, plus an annual bonus of €10,000 if it included an annual appraisal and followed the Terms and Conditions of his previous employment. The complainant submitted that a no time during his employment was he provided with a written contract of employment or a list of his terms and conditions of employment and that he had only once received a bonus. He also submitted that the agreement and offer made to him at the outset of employment was never followed through. He also submitted that the location of his employment was changed, and he never received anything in return for this. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent accepted that it had never issued the complainant with a contract of employment or a written note of the terms and conditions of his employment. The respondent submitted that during the complainants six-and-a-half-year employment he never raised any of these issues with them. The respondent suggested that they complied with his minimum statutory entitlements and adhered to all the required employment rights. The respondent contended that the complainant never followed up on the €10,000 bonus and had not raised any objection to the move back to Cavan. The respondent confirmed that he was paid ‘walking’ money in the form of his tax-free subsistence payments. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant was asked a number of times what he wanted the adjudicator to do should he find in his favour. He replied that he ‘simply’ wanted a written copy of his contract stating that he was earning €90,000 plus an annual bonus and including annual appraisals. The respondent submitted in response that as this annual amount was in dispute and no written contract was ever drawn up, the best that could be hoped for in the circumstances was that it could issue a specimen contract under the terms it considered the complainant was employed under. The respondent also indicated that it had provided written terms and conditions to all its employees since this complaint was brought to its notice. Having considered the written and oral submissions of both parties, I am satisfied that the respondent failed to provide the complainant with a written copy of his terms and conditions of employment and I find that his complaint in this regard was well-founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Having regard to the finding that the complaint was well-founded, my decision is to award the complainant compensation. Having regard to all to the circumstances, I consider it just and equitable to award compensation equivalent to two weeks remuneration: i.e. €1,356.78 x 2 weeks = €2713.56 |
Dated: 10/09/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Terms and conditions of work, compensation |