Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Andrew  Menton

Autoline Car Services Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

  Self

 Richard Mair & Garry O’Doherty

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-00067384-001

14/11/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00067384-002

14/11/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00067384-003

14/11/2024

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a car valeter. This period of employment commenced in February 2024 and ended on 30/07/2024.   He was paid €15.00 per hour and worked 40 hours per week.  The Complainant submitted his complaints to the WRC on 14/11/2024.

The Complainant submitted three complaints to the WRC on 14/11/2024.  He is alleging that he did not receive a statement in writing which outlined his terms and conditions of employment.  He gave evidence on affirmation that he had requested a contract of employment but did not receive anything.  He also did not receive any clarification in relation to his actual duties and he was asked to undertake tasks which he did not consider were part of his car valeting duties.  

The Complainant also submitted a complaint that his working conditions were not good.  He was exposed to rain in the workshop, which was untidy, unsafe and used to dump other goods.  His workshop also had no heating or ventilation.  The Complainant stated that he raised his concerns with the management but they made jokes about it and said that he should do something about the issues himself.

The Complainant submitted a complaint of unfair dismissal but he was unsure if he was dismissed.  He did not return to work due to health issues and was advised by his doctor to remain at home until his health improved.  The Complainant stated in evidence that he was on illness benefit and was seeking other employment.  

In response to a question from the Adjudication Officer the Complainant confirmed that his current period of employment commenced in February 2024.  He accepted that he did not have 12 months continuous service but he thought that his previous service with the Respondent would be reckonable for the purposes of the unfair dismissal complaint.  The complaint confirmed that as he did not have the required service  pursue a claim for unfair dismissal he was withdrawing this complaint.

Mr Mair gave evidence on affirmation on behalf of the Respondent.  He confirmed that he is a director of the Respondent.   Mr Mair stated that he reluctantly agreed to take the Complainant on as a car valeter in February 2024.  He was previously employed by them and he was taken back on a trial basis.  Mr Mair stated that it was clear that there were problems with the Complainant’s attendance straight away. He wanted to reduce his hours and was regularly complaining.  Mr Mair stated that he did not provide any written documentation to the Complainant as he wanted to see how the Complainant performed before he would issue him with a contract of employment.   Mr Mair also stated that when the Complainant was interviewed it was made clear to him what his duties were.  As they are a small company it would not be unusual that employees would be asked to undertake various ad hoc tasks as they regularly assist one another. The Complainant went on sick leave and he stopped sending in medical certificates.  A contract of employment was prepared but he was never signed by the Complainant due to his irregular attendance.

In relation to the complaint about the working conditions Mr Mair stated that they were required by the Landlord to move to another location within the grounds.  This involved the use of builders, plasterers and electricians and the Respondent rejects the Complainant’s view that that the car valeting area was not fit for purpose.  As it is a valeting bay it will be subjected to the elements at some stage. The area was fitted with an extractor fan and a heater. It was the Complainant’s responsibility to keep the area clean and tidy. 

Mr O’Doherty, who also gave evidence on affirmation confirmed that he is also a director stated that this was the first occasion they had to deal with a complaint in the WRC.  None of the other car valeting staff had raised any issues in relation to the valeting bay. The Complainant also had a canteen in which to have his breaks.

In relation to the complaint of unfair dismissal the Respondent confirmed that the Complainant was never dismissed.  He remains on their books.  They did not hear from him since he ceased to submit medical certificates and any attempts by Mr Mair to contact him were not responded to.

It was also submitted on behalf of the Respondent that they gave him a loan of €1,270 while he was on sick leave and he still has a balance of €950 outstanding on this  The Complainant also had the use of a car provided by the Respondent when attending work.

CA-00067384-001: It is not disputed that the Complainant did not receive details of his terms and conditions when he commenced employment in February 2024.

The Applicable law:

The relevant sections of the Act provide as follows:

3.—(1A) 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:

(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 2014);

(c) 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;

(d) the remuneration, including the initial basic amount, any other component elements, if applicable, indicated separately, the frequency and method of payment of the remuneration to which the employee is entitled and the pay reference period for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000;

(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;

(f) where sections 4B to 4E (in so far as they are in operation) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 apply to the employer, the employer’s policy on the manner in which tips or gratuities and mandatory charges (within the meaning of section 1 of that Act) are treated,

(g) the place of work or, where there is no fixed or main place of work, a statement specifying that the employee is employed at various places or is free to determine his or her place of work or to work at various places;

(h) either—

(i) the title, grade, nature or category of work for which the employee is employed, or

(ii) a brief specification or description of the work;

(i) the date of commencement of the employee’s contract of employment;

(j) any terms or conditions relating to hours of work (including overtime);

(k) where a probationary period applies, its duration and conditions.]

(1B) Where a statement under subsection (1A) contains an error or omission, the statement shall be regarded as complying with the provisions of that subsection if it is shown that the error or omission was made by way of a clerical mistake or was otherwise made accidentally and in good faith”.

An Adjudication Officer has jurisdiction under this Act to assess if the Respondent breached the Act by failing to provide the Complainant with a written statement of the terms of his employment as per s. 3 of the Act. 

The Terms of Employment (Information) Act imposes obligations on an employer and confers a corresponding right on a worker to have the basic terms of employment set out in writing in accordance with section 3 of the Act. The obligation to give an employee a written statement of terms of employment rests solely with the Respondent.  The Respondent failed to do so in this case.

The requirement to supply a written statement to an employee is an important one which provides the basis for an employee to have the clarity as required by the Act as regards his or her terms of employment. The Complainant in this case was without that clarity  in relation to certain terms of employment, as specified in the Act.

As a result, I  find that this complaint is well founded.

In circumstances where I consider the complaint to be well founded, I may require a statement to 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.  Given the circumstances of this case there is no longer a requirement to provide the terms.  Where a contravention of the Act occurs the Adjudication Officer must make an award that is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. It was not disputed that the Complainant was in receipt of an hourly rate of pay of €15.00 and that he worked  approximately 40 hours a week.

The Respondent fully accepts that it failed to provide the Complainant with a written statement of terms of employment as required under s.3(1)(A) of the Act within 5 days of the commencement of his employment.

Given the Complainant’s short tenure of employment I consider that an award of €1,200 to be just and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA-00067384-002:  The Respondent has provided clarity in relation to the various improvements made to the work area.  There is no link between this complaint and the Complainant’s terms and conditions as outlined in the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.  I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00067384-003:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 8 of the Unfair dismissals Act, 1977.  This complaint was withdrawn by the Complainant at the hearing on 15/04/2025.

CA-00067384-001:  The Respondent failed to provide the Complainant with a written statement of terms of employment as required under s.3(1)(A) of the Act within 5 days of the commencement of his employment.  I find this complaint to be well founded.  Given the Complainant’s short tenure of employment I consider that an award of €1,200 to be just and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA-00067384-002:  I have decided that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00067384-003:  Complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 8 of the Unfair dismissals Act, 1977.  This complaint was withdrawn by the Complainant at the hearing on 15/04/2025.

Terms and conditions of employment.