Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Celine  O' Donnell

Nuvotem Teoranta

Representatives

Mr. Vernon Hegarty, SIPTU

Mr. Terence O'Sullivan, TJOS Solicitors

Act

Complaint 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-00068076-001

13/12/2024

The Complainant commenced employment on 3rd January 1989. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time employee, in receipt of an average weekly wage of €588.12. The Complainant’s employment was terminated by reason of redundancy on 27th September 2024.

On 13th December 2024, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent failed to provide her with written terms of employment in contravention of the Act. In answering this claim, the Respondent accepted that they were in breach of the legislation, but submitted that any award on foot of the same should be minimal.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 22nd August 2025. This hearing was conducted 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. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

The Complainant issued a written submission in advance of the hearing, while the representative for the Respondent made a submission at the hearing of the matter. This matter was heard in parallel to that bearing file reference, ADJ-00055925, and this decision should be read in conjunction with the same.

In correspondence, the Respondent submitted that the present complaint was statute barred. However, in circumstances whereby the final day of the Complainant’s employment fell with the cognizable period for the purposes of the impleaded Act, it was determined that no such issues arise.  

By submission, the Complainant stated that she did not receive a written statement of terms employment in the course of her engagement with the Respondent. In addition to the same, she submitted that the Respondent’s failure in this regard caused her some disquiet prior to her termination.

By response, the Respondent accepted that the Complainant did not receive a statement of terms of employment in writing, and accepted that they were in breach of the Act. Notwithstanding the same, the Respondent submitted that they have sought to rectify the issue on a company-wide basis. They further submitted that the Complainant has not demonstrated any detriment or prejudice on foot of the same and as such, any award in this regard should be minimal.

Regarding the present complaint, the Respondent has accepted that they did not provide a written statement of terms of employment to the Complainant within the timeframe provided for in the Act. As such it is apparent that the Respondent is in breach of the Act, and the complaint is deemed to be well-founded.

Regarding redress, it is noted that the Complainant was a long-term member of staff, with a start date some time prior to the commencement of the impleaded Act. In this regard, it is apparent that the Complainant did not receive any written terms of employment for a lengthy period of time, and the Respondent’s breach is no technical or minor matter. In circumstances whereby the Act provides for a relatively modest maximum compensation of  four weeks’ remuneration, I find that this sum represents appropriate compensation for the breach of the Act.

I find that the complaint is well-founded. Regarding compensation, I award the Complainant the sum of €2,352.48 in compensation for the breach of the Act.

Written Terms, Compensation