ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055060
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Daniel Marius Simon | Rcf Logistics Limited |
Representatives |
| Andrea Montanelli Peninsula |
Complaint:
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-00055241-001 | 23/02/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/04/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation made by an employee of a complaint of a contravention - by an employer - of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 (or such other Act as might be referred to in the 2015 Act), to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I was prepared to fulfil my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or dispute.
The Complainant herein has referred a matter for adjudication as provided for under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 in circumstances where a Contract of Service has commenced and where the said Employee employed by an Employer is entitled to have been provided (within two months of the commencement of the employee’s employment with the employer) with a Statement of certain Terms of the employment.
The said terms are specified in Section 3 of the 1994 Act and include items such as names, addresses and place of work. There should also be a job title and a description of the nature of the work. The start date and the nature/duration of the Contract should be included in the statement as well as the terms of the remuneration. This statement should be dated and signed with copies retained by both parties.
In addition to the foregoing, The Employment (Miscellaneous provisions) Act of 2018 (s.7) amended Section 3 of the Terms of Employment Act 1994 so as to oblige Employer’s to provide a new Employee with a written Statement of certain core details (names, employer’s address, nature of Contract, remuneration and hours) concerning the employment within 5 working days of the employment commencing. Failure to provide the core details after one month of continuous service can lead to an award of four weeks remuneration. The 2018 Act came into effect on the 4th of March 2019.
The balance of Terms outlined in the 1994 Act have to be detailed within the two-month period already specified.
This Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 implements an EU Directive and applies to all persons working under a Contract of Employment or apprenticeship (whether on a fulltime or part time basis). It includes persons working through an employment agency where the party remunerating is responsible for the provision of the said Statement of Terms.
The complaint was made on the 23rd of February 2023 and I can consider such contravention of the Act which is alleged to have occurred within the six-month period prior to that date. The Complainant was in employment up to the 29th of April 2022. The complaint was therefore brought some ten months after the end of the employment.
The contravention first accrues the day after the expiration of the two-month period for the provision of the Statement and every day thereafter. In the event of termination of the employment the right to bring such a claim will die six months after the end of the employment.
In circumstances where I consider the complaint to be well founded, I may require a Statement of Terms be provided. In addition, I am entitled to direct a payment of compensation up to the value of four weeks remuneration such that is just and equitable in all the circumstances.
Background:
This hearing was to be conducted in remotely as provided for in the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party would have been prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way. Had evidence been given it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came intoeffecton the 29th of July 2021, and which said legislation accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence. The Complaint herein was brought to the attention of the WRC on the 23rd of February 2023 by way of a workplace relations complaint form. To facilitate the Complainant in bringing this complaint an application was made to provide an interpreter, which application was acceded to. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 4th of March 2025 – and emailed to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means when filling out his complaint form. From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant seeks to assert that he was not provided with a Contract of employment pursuant to Statutory directive. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent had full legal representation at this hearing. The Respondent was represented by Penninsula. The Respondent was further represented by the Company Owner Raul Filip. The Respondent provided me with a written submissions dated the 8th of April 2025. The Respondent rejects that there has been a contravention of the Statutory rights and further asserts that the complaint herein is out of time. This issue may well have been dealt with as a preliminary issue had this matter proceeded. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant did not attend to prosecute his claim. No evidence was provided. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00055241-001 - The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the Complainant did not attend.
|
Dated: 21st of May 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|