ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056801
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Yunji Choi | The Hot Donut |
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-00069148-001 | 09/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. | CA-00069148-002 | 09/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/05/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
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.
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 presents. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties.
The matter was heard by way of a remote hearing on 28 May 2025 pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied the Respondent was properly notified of the hearing. After the hearing no explanation was received by the WRC to explain the respondent’s absence.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 8 October 2024 as a Barista. She worked irregular hours, normally working around 30 hours per week. She was paid €13.50 per hour from the beginning of January 2025. Her employment ended in or around the first week in March 2024. |
CA-000 69148-001 complaint undersection 7 of the Terms of Employment (Info) Act, 1994.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted that she did not receive a statement in writing on her terms of employment. The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing. The Complainant stated that she was never given a written contract of employment. She did get paid but often her payment was late, and she had to chase her boss to be paid. The Complainant stated that the end of her employment came about when she had not been paid for a week’s work she had completed (20-27 February 2025) so she decided not to turn up for work. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
On the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the Complainant was never issued with a statement in writing on her terms of employment. I find the Respondent has breached the Act. I find it just and equitable that the Complainant be awarded compensation of one weeks’ pay (30 hours x €13.50 = €405) and direct payment by the Respondent. |
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is well founded and I award the Complainant €405. |
CA-000 69148-002 Complaint made under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Info) Act, 1994.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that her employer did not provide her with a reasoned reply to her request for employment with more predictable and secure working conditions within one month of her making such a request. The Complainant stated that she had asked her manager, verbally and by text message, about her hours as they were irregular. She never received a reasoned response. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
On the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that she was never given a reasoned reply to her request for employment with more predictable and secure working conditions. I find the Respondent has breached the Act. I find it just and equitable that the Complainant be awarded compensation of one weeks’ pay (30 hours x €13.50 = €405) and direct payment by the Respondent. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is well founded and I award the Complainant €405. |
Dated: 17-06-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Terms of employment, uncontested evidence. |