ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057573
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Adam Daly | Noel Howley Logistics |
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-00070059-001 | 18/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 | CA-00070059-002 | 18/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/06/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
On 18 March 2025 the Complainant referred 2 complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission under as outlined above.
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, a hearing was scheduled for 24 June 2025 so that I might inquire into the complaints and give the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021} IESC 24, the parties were informed in advance of the hearing that the hearing would normally be in public, testimony under oath or affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. Two members of the public joined the hearing.
The Complainant attended the hearing and was unrepresented.
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent had made contact with the WRC to say that he would not be attending as he was taking holidays. It was explained to him that he could send a representative to the hearing or make an application for a postponement. No application was made for a postponement.
The hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and SI 359/2020, which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.
At the hearing, the Complainant was advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised, and the parties are named in the heading of the decision. For ease of reference, the generic terms of Complainant and Respondent are used throughout the text.
The required affirmation/oath was administered and the legal perils of committing perjury were explained to the Complainant prior to him giving testimony.
and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Driver by the Respondent from 21 August 2021 until his employment was terminated in January 2025. He alleged that he did not receive a statement in writing of his terms of employment and that the Respondent did not honour the verbal contract agreed. The Respondent operates a transport logistics company. There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent, neither did the Respondent provide a written submission outlining it’s position.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00070059-001 In his complaint form the Complainant stated that he did not receive a statement in writing of his terms of employment, that he received no contract, and that the Respondent did not honour the verbal contract.
At hearing the Complainant confirmed that he did not receive a statement of his terms of employment. He stated that initially he had worked for a subcontractor but that the company had folded in July 2021. He stated that at that time the Respondent had offered him a job. He advised that the job was in Tallaght, that he lived in Blanchardstown and that he had no car so would be unable to attend. He advised that the Respondent had offered him the use of a company van and in those circumstances, he had accepted the job. He advised that he was let go in October 2022 as the work had “dried up”. He confirmed that he was contacted again by the Respondent in January 2023 and offered a job again. A rate of pay was agreed, and it was also agreed that the same deal in relation to the use of the company van would apply. He advised that in January 2025 he received a phone call from the Respondent to say that the van would not be insured to be away from the Respondent premises each evening and that from the following week he would be required to return the van to base each evening. He confirmed that he had a meeting with the Respondent, only to be told the same thing. He confirmed that he had a clear agreement with the Respondent but that he never received a copy of those terms in writing. The Complainant confirmed that he was out sick for two months and that he resigned his employment in April 2025.
CA-00070059-002 In his complaint form the Complainant stated that his employer was not keeping statutory records, that there was no contract of employment, no health and safety statement, no rule book or guide for the workplace. At hearing the Complainant outlined that there was no health and safety statement , no training and no guidelines for employees within the Respondent company. He stated that no record was kept of break times and that if he didn’t work late when requested by the Respondent he was threatened. In response to a query from the Adjudication Officer about recording of working time the Complainant confirmed that the Respondent had tried to bring in a system but had not succeeded. The Complainant stated that there was a tracker on the van but that he wasn’t aware how much information it contained. He also confirmed that there was an annual leave sheet for requesting current annual leave and that he assumed the Respondent kept details of leave taken.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00070059-001 There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent, neither did the Respondent provide a written submission outlining it’s position. CA-00070059-002 There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent, neither did the Respondent provide a written submission outlining it’s position.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00070059-001 The Complainant commenced his most recent period of employment with the Respondent in January 2023 and, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 (1A) of the Terms of Employment Act, he should have received confirmation of his core terms of employment within 5 days of commencement of employment. I noted that he did not receive this 5 day statement. Section 3 of the Act states: “3 - (1) An employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee's employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee's employment, that is to say –
(a) the full names of the employer and the employee,
(b) the address of the employer in the State or, where appropriate, the address of the principal place of the relevant business of the employer in the State or the registered office (within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1963),
(c) the place of work or, where there is no fixed or main place of work, a statement specifying that the employee is required or permitted to work at various places,
(d) the title of the job or nature of the work for which the employee is employed,
(e) the date of commencement of the employee's contract of employment,
(f) in the case of a temporary contract of employment, the expected duration thereof or, if the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the date on which the contract expires,
(g) the rate or method of calculation of the employee's remuneration,
(h) the length of the intervals between the times at which remuneration is paid, whether a week, a month or any other interval,
(i) any terms or conditions relating to hours of work (including overtime),
(j) any terms or conditions relating to paid leave (other than paid sick leave),
(k) any terms or conditions relating to —
(i) incapacity for work due to sickness or injury and paid sick leave, and
(ii) pensions and pension schemes,
(l) the period of notice which the employee is required to give and entitled to receive (whether by or under statute or under the terms of the employee's contract of employment) to determine the employee's contract of employment or, where this cannot be indicated when the information is given, the method for determining such periods of notice,
(m) a reference to any collective agreements which directly affect the terms and conditions of the employee's employment including, where the employer is not a party to such agreements, particulars of the bodies or institutions by whom they were made”.
I noted that the above more detailed statement of terms of employment must be provided to the employee within 2 months of commencement of employment and that the complainant did not receive this statement from the Respondent. There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent, however, I was satisfied that notice containing the details of the date, time and place of the hearing had been properly communicated to the Respondent.
As no further communication was received at the time of finalising this decision to explain the absence of the respondent, and in the context that I am satisfied that the said respondent was informed in writing of the arrangements for the hearing, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary being adduced before me, I must conclude that complaint is well founded.
Redress Section 7 (2) (d) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act provides that an Adjudication Officer may “order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment.” I noted that the impact of the change to the verbally agreed term of employment, unilaterally imposed on the Complainant, had the effect of making it impossible for him to remain in employment and so, in making my decision on redress I have taken into account the significant impact of the breach of the act on the Complainant. I noted that at the time of his employment he was in receipt of €630.00 gross pay per week. In all of the circumstances I consider the maximum permissible award to appropriate in this instance. CA-00070059-002 I noted that at hearing the Complainant was not in a position to be specific about what records were not retained by the Respondent and in those circumstances did not have sufficient evidence to ground this complaint. In these circumstances I find that this complaint is not well founded.
|
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- 00070059-001 I have found, having regard to all the circumstances of the complaint, that this complaint is well founded, and I decide accordingly. I also found that the appropriate redress was to award the Complainant the maximum permissible under the Act and so I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the amount of €2640.00 as compensation for the breach of the legislation. CA-00070059-002 I have found that this complaint is not well founded, and I decide accordingly. |
Dated: 07-08-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
|