ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056734
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
| A Worker | A Services Office |
Representatives | Self-Represented. | Mr Liam Moloney of Moloney & Co. Solicitors |
Complaints:
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-00068954-001 | 31/01/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00068954-002 | 31/01/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/04/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015; Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance 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.
The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses present. The legal perils of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
This matter was heard 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.
The issue of anonymisation in the published finding of the WRC was considered by the Parties . It was agreed to anonymise the published Decision due to sensitive Medical Practice issues.
Background:
The issues in contention concerned a Payment of Wages claim and a complaint that a Statement of Terms and Conditions had not been provided. The Complainant was employed as a Practice Manager in a Medical facility. The employment had begun on the 23rd September 2024 and ended on the 30th December 2024. The rate of pay was stated , by the Complainant ,to have been € 3,166.66 Gross per month for a 40 hour week. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was self-represented . An Oral testimony was given supported by some written materials. 1:1 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 - CA: 00068954-001 The Complainant stated that she had never received a Written Statement of her Terms and Conditions or a Written Contract. The Complainant referenced many conversations with Dr X and alleged Verbal agreements regarding work practices such as working from home days etc. A suggestion of a Multi Practice Role, with a Car supplied, for the Complainant had been allegedly made in early December by Dr X. The Contract submitted in evidence was a classic “Post factum” document that had been produced for the benefit of the WRC Hearing. An intimidatory effort, tied to outstanding wages ,had been made to get her to sign it in January 2025. An attempt by the Respondent to force her into signing a document as she was leaving was completely improper. 1:2 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 - CA: 00068954-002 It was agreed verbally that his complaint had been settled between the parties . No further action from the WRC was required. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
2:1 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 - CA: 00068954-001 The Respondent ,under Oath/Affirmation , insisted that a Contract of Employment had been provided to the Complainant. Her duties were to provide all Employees with Contacts of Employment. They were stored on a PC in her Office. On her exit the Staff had been unable to source the Complainant’s signed Contract. A copy contract was submitted in evidence . It was further stated that the Complainant, by virtue of her position as Practice Manager , had a comprehensive knowledge of all employee terms and conditions. Her complaint had no merit. 2:2 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 - CA: 00068954-001 It was agreed verbally that his complaint had been settled between the parties . No further action from the WRC was required
|
3: Findings and Conclusions:
3:1 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 - CA: 00068954-001 There was considerable conflicting oral testimony on this issue. Witness evidence ,under Oath/ Affirmation was provided by the Complainant and the Respondent Principal , Dr X. The Principal, Dr X, a Medical professional, maintained that a contract had been provided and signed in September 2024. 3:2 Adjudication Conclusion. It was clear that considerable confusion was evident in this case. The Complainant was responsible for all Contracts of Employment. It seemed unusual that she had neglected to address the issue of her own Contract or to allow it remain uncompleted. Overall the Adjudication Officer felt that the working relationship , based largely on Verbal assurances between the Parties had deteriorated in December 2024. Staff written statements making numerous allegations , particularly regarding non-attendance at the workplace, against the Complainant , were supplied to this effect. The date of the actual signing of the Contract was very ambiguous. The duties of the Complainant were clearly that of overall Practice Management and effectively Personnel Administration including Contracts of Employment. In conclusion the Adjudication view is that the issues are straightforward. A contract was provided even if the dates of signature are somewhat ambiguous. The Complainant was responsible for providing Employment Contacts for all Staff. The alleged non production of her own Contract by the Complainant and the non-signature of same were hard to sustain. It appeared from the Oral testimony that the employment arrangements for the Complainant as a “Senior” Manager were quite ambiguous as regards Office Attendance, Working from Home and other issues regarding the physical place of work between Practices None the less the Sworn/Affirmation testimony of Dr X that a Contract had been provided was compelling. The Complainant also on Sworn evidence completely refuted this. On overall balance the Complaint requires an Adjudication judgment of probability derived from the Sworn Oral and Written evidence. The only “Hard Evidence” was the contract produced in evidence from Dr X supported by his sworn testimony. Based on this evidence the complaint cannot be seen as Well Founded. It cannot be successful.
|
4: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under the cited Acts.
4:1 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 - CA: 00068954-001
The Complaint is deemed Not Well Founded . It fails.
4:2 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 - CA: 00068954-002
This issue was resolved locally.
It was deemed to have been withdrawn at the Hearing.
Dated: 4th July 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Terms and Conditions of Employment, Payment of wages |