ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052003
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Afonso Filipe | Mpma Enterprises Limited |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00063644-001 | 22/05/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00063644-002 | 22/05/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00063644-003 | 22/05/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00063644-004 | 22/05/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/08/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant and two witnesses for the respondent gave their evidence under affirmation, cross examination was facilitated for all witnesses. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00063644-001 & 003 - Written terms and conditions The complainant submitted that he was not given a copy of either his core terms and conditions in writing within 5 days of commencing employment, nor was he given have written copy of his terms and conditions in writing within one month of starting employment. CA-00063644-002 – Mandatory Training The complainant initially submitted that there was a contravention under the act in relation to mandatory training however in his oral evidence he accepted that no breach of the act took place. CA-00063644-004 – Change in Terms and Conditions of Employment The complainant submitted that he was provided with a salary certificate in January which indicated that he was not subject to a probation period but that when he finally received his terms and conditions of employment in April, it indicated that there was a probationary period. He submitted that this constituted a breach of the Act in relation to a change in his terms and conditions of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00063644-001 & 003 - Written terms and conditions The complainant submitted that he was not given a copy of either his core terms and conditions in writing within 5 days of commencing employment, nor was he given have written copy of his terms and conditions in writing within one month of starting employment. The respondent accepted that this was the case. CA-00063644-004 – Change in Terms and Conditions of Employment As regards the salary certificate, the respondent indicated that the complainant was seeking mortgage approval and accordingly did not indicate on the certificate that he was subjected to a probationary period. It was confirmed start his written terms and conditions document provided to him in April 2023 did make reference to a probationary period. |
Findings and Conclusions
The respondent noted in writing the complainant’s weekly salary amounted to €546 per week. CA-00063644-001 & 003 - Written terms and conditions As the respondent has accepted the breach of the act in relation to not providing a written copy of either core employment terms in writing, nor providing terms and conditions of employment in writing within the one-month period provided under the legislation, I find that the complaint is well founded and that Section 3(1) and 3(1A) of the Act have been contravened. In the circumstances, I find that three weeks wages, as provided for under the Act, is just and equitable in all the circumstances. CA-00063644-002 – Mandatory Training Mandatory training 6G.— Where an employer is required by law or by a collective agreement to provide training to an employee to carry out the work for which he or she is employed, such training shall — (a) be provided to the employee free of cost, (b) count as working time, and (c) where possible, take place during working hours. The complainant outlined the facts of his mandatory training noting that it was provided free of cost, took place during working hours and when it took place outside of working hours, he was given time-in-lieu of the training time. He accepted that he was provided his mandatory training in accordance with the provisions of the Act. I am satisfied that no breach of Section 6G of the Act occurred, and I find that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00063644-004 – Change in Terms and Conditions of Employment 5.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than— (a) the day on which the change takes effect, or (b) where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month, the time of the employee’s departure. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a change occurring in provisions of statutes or instruments made under statute , other than a registered employment agreement or employment regulation order, or of any other laws or of any administrative provisions or collective agreements referred to in the statement given under section 3 or 4. The respondent confirmed that in January 2024 it provided the complainant with the document which stated he was not subject to a probationary period and then in April provided an additional document that said that the complainant was subject to a probationary period. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that a change in his terms and conditions occurred as outlined in Section 5 of the Act. However, notification of that change in terms and conditions of employment was provided to him at the time that the change took effect and accordingly I do not find that the complaint is well founded and that the Act has been contravened. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00063644-001 & 003 - Written terms and conditions Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act has been contravened. I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation equal to three weeks remuneration, i.e., €1,638.00, which I consider to be just and equitable in all the circumstances of this complaint. CA-00063644-002 – Mandatory Training Having regard to all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00063644-004 – Change in Terms and Conditions of Employment Having regard to all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 03 04 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Terms of Employment Information – complaint well founded – award of compensation |