Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Denisa Stefania  Costea

Ziggy Investments Limited trading as Eddie Rocket's

Representatives

Marius Marosan

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-00062898-001

18/04/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00062898-002

18/04/2024

The Complainant worked for the Respondent franchised food restaurant from the 15th of October 2023 until the 25th of February 2024. She has submitted complaints that she sought a contract of employment but was not given one and was then targeted for dismissal for asking.

The Complainant was represented by Mr Morosan who made written submission on her behalf. The Complainant provided evidence under affirmation and where relevant this is highlighted in the Findings and Conclusions section.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. A hearing notification was posted to their registered address and as such I am satisfied they were on notice of the hearing.

The Complainant’s evidence was that she sought a contract of employment on a number of occasions. The reason was that she had been hired on full time hours but then not assigned full time hours.

She continued to ask for a contract of employment in December and January 2025. She was then dismissed suddenly in February 2025 and was told there was no work even if though they were continuing to hire people. She was the only person asking for a contract and believes this is why she was targeted.

The Complainant’s average working week was approximately 28 hours paid at €12.70 an hour. Her average salary was €355.60 per week. After her dismissal she gained fulltime employment elsewhere after about a week.

The Complainant has submitted two complaints under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. 

CA-00062898-001

This complaint is related to the Respondent’s failure to provide a statement of core particulars within 5 days of commencement as required by S3.1A of the Act. The Complainant’s unchallenged evidence was that she is not furnished any such statement for the duration of her employment.

Section 7.2 of the act provides that an Adjudication Officer can 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.

As such the maximum award I can grant is €1422. As the Complainant’s complaint relates to information regarding the most basic working conditions I am of the view I should award the maximum.

CA-00062898-002

This complaint is related to the Respondent’s dismissal of the Complainant which she says was in retaliation for her invoking her rights under this act. Such penalisation is prohibited by Section 6C of the Act.

The Complainant has provided evidence that she was invoking her right to written terms of employment and was dismissed for it. The Respondent outlined to her that the reason for her dismissal was a slowdown but there was an ongoing need for new staff. She was the only person looking for clarity on her hours and the other workers were all non-EEA student workers who were being given full time hours even though they were required to work part-time due to their visas, as such ambiguity as to regular working hours suited the Respondent.

The Respondent has not attended the hearing or provided evidence. In deciding this matter I am cognisant of the common law principle of peculiar knowledge as applied by the Labour Court in O’Neill v. Toni and Guy Blackrock Ltd. In that claim the Court was also considering penalisation by way of dismissal and outlined peculiar knowledge: “is a rule of evidence which provides that where it is shown that a particular fact in issue is peculiarly within a defendant’s knowledge the onus of proving  that fact rests with the defendant”

“In the instant case what is at issue is the motive or reason for the claimant’s dismissal. That is to be found in the thought process of the decision-makers at the time the decision to dismiss the complainant was taken. That is something which is peculiarly within the knowledge of the respondent. It would be palpably unfair to expect the claimant to adduce direct evidence to show that the respondent was influenced by his earlier complaints in deciding to dismiss him. Conversely, it is perfectly reasonable to require the respondent to establish that the reasons for the dismissal were unrelated to his complaints under the Act.”

In applying the above rationale the Court recognised that the burden of proof in penalisation cases could shift to the Respondent where a Complainant has established that a protected act has occurred and in the circumstances of the case, it is apt to infer from subsequent events that the protected acts were an operative consideration leading to dismissal.

I am of the view that the Complainant has established the above inference and that absent any evidence provided by the Respondent the complaint is well founded.

Section 7(2)e provides that an Adjudication Officer can award up to 4 weeks renumeration in relation to a complaint of a contravention under section 6C, and without prejudice to the award made in CA-00062898-001.

As such the maximum award I can grant is a further payment of €1422. As the Complainant was dismissed, I am of the view I should award the maximum.

CA-00062898-001

The complaint is well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €1422 in compensation.

CA-00062898-002

The complaint is well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €1422 in compensation.