Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Cait Cronin

Kayleigh Rossiter t/a Xo Beauty Cork

Representatives

  Self-Represented

 Self-Represented

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-00063959-001

07/06/2024

The Complainant worked as Nail Technician for 17.45 hours a week at a rate of €12.80 from 25 April 2024 until 31 May 2024. The Complainant submits she never received a copy of her terms of employment from the Respondent, contrary to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. The Respondent does not dispute the claim.

The Complainant asserts she was employed from 25 April 2024 until 31 May 2024 and she did not receive a written statement of terms of employment from the Respondent, which she maintains she should have gotten within the first five days nor did she receive the remaining terms of employment within the first month. The Complainant submits she was employed for five weeks before she was let go.

The Respondent accepts she did not supply the Complainant with a copy of her terms of employment. However, the Respondent outlined difficulties that they encountered trying to get basic information from the Complainant, including, amongst other things, the Complainant’s correct name and PPS number.

Section 3 of the Terms of Employment Act in its relevant parts provides: -

(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—

(fa) a reference to any registered employment agreement or employment regulation order which applies to the employee and confirmation of where the employee may obtain a copy of such agreement or order,

…(h) the length of the intervals between the times at which remuneration is paid, whether a week, a month or any other interval,

…. (i) the principle that the work schedule is variable, the number of guaranteed paid hours and the remuneration for work performed in addition to those guaranteed hours...

Section 3 (1A) of the Act states in its relevant part:

“Without prejudice to subsection (1), an employer shall, not later than 5 days 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:

…(e) the number of hours which the employer reasonably expects the employee to work—

(i) per normal working day, and

(ii) per normal working week...”

The Complainant gave uncontested evidence that she received no documentation from the Respondent regarding her terms of employment, near commencement of employment, nor at any other time during the period of employment. I am satisfied therefore that her complaint was well founded.

Redress in the Act is described as follows in its relevant part at Section 7(2):

 A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of sections 3, 4, 5, 6or 6C shall do one or more of the following, namely—

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

 (d)in relation to a complaint of a contravention under change section 3, 4, 5, or 6, and without prejudice to any order made under paragraph (e)  order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks ’remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977…

 When determining whether compensation should be granted for non-compliance with the provisions outlined in section 3 of the Act, I must be mindful of the practical implications that it held for the Complainant. The Complainant gave no evidence of looking for the terms during her employment nor did she give details of any negative effects from the omission by the Respondent during her five weeks of employment. For those reasons, I believe the transgression to be on the minor end of the scale. Having taken all the submissions and evidence into account, I direct that the Respondent should pay the Complainant the compensatory €223, the equivalence of one weeks’ pay.

For the reasons outlined above, I find that the complaint was well founded, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the compensatory sum of €223.

Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.