Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Alvaro  Carvalho

Chain It Services Ltd

Representatives

Self-Represented

No Appearance

Act

Complaint 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-00068341-001

25/12/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00068342-001

25/12/2024

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 13th October 2023. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly payment of €1,250 towards the end of his employment. The contract of employment terminated on 26th November 2024.

On 25th December 2024, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that the Respondent failed to amended his statement of terms of employment followings a change in his terms. He also submitted that he did not receive breaks in contravention of the legislation.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 17th June 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. In circumstances whereby no application for adjournment was received, and following the a brief delay in the proceedings to allow for potential lateness, the matter proceeded in their absence.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaints were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

In evidence, the Complainant submitted that he receive a statement of terms of employment at or near the outset of his engagement with the Respondent. Thereafter, the Complainant received a significant increase in salary and was moved to a new location. The Complainant submitted that neither of these amended terms were reflected in writing.

In addition to the foregoing, the Complainant submitted that the would routinely work for his entire shift without any form of break. In this respect, the Complainant stated that we usually worked alone and had no facility for a break. In this respect, the Complainant submitted that hi shift would usually be 6 or 8 hours in duration.

As set out above, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing as scheduled. Having reviewed the file, it is apparent that the Respondent was notified of the time, date and venue of the hearing. In circumstances whereby no application for adjournment was received form the Respondent in advance of the hearing, an no explanation for their non-attendance was received thereafter, the decision below will be based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant.

Regarding the present case, the Complainant has alleged that his core terms of employment, most notably his rate of pay, altered in the course of his employment. In circumstances, whereby the same was not reduced to writing, he submitted that the Respondent was in breach of the Act.

In this regard, Section 5(1) of the Act provides that,

“...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…”

In consideration of the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the Respondent is in breach of this provision and the complaint is duly deemed to be well-founded.

Regarding the second complaint, again the uncontested evidence of the Complainant was that he would routinely work for six or eight continuous hours without a break. Again, this position was not contradicted by evidence from the Respondent, and as such is deemed to be well-founded.

CA-00068341-001 Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act

I find that the complaint is well-founded. Having regard to the evidence tendered by the Complainant I award him the sum of €1,250 in compensation.

CA-00068342-001 Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act

I find that the complaint is well-founded. Having regard to the evidence tendered by the Complainant I award him the sum of €1,000 in compensation.

Amendment to Terms, Breaks