Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Arthur  Murray

Keogh Barrett Tours Limited

Representatives

Self

Anton Romaniuk (otherwise Keogh)  

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-00069064-001

05/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00069064-002

05/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00069064-003

05/02/2025

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Minibus Driver from a date in October 2024 until his dismissal on the 25th of January 2025. The date of commencement was in dispute whereas the date of termination was agreed by the parties at the hearing. 

The Complainant originally made three claims as follows:

CA-00069064-001 - A Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (as amended) (“the TE Act”)

CA-00069064-002- A complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 (as amended) (“The MN Act”)

CA-00069064-003 – A complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 (as amended)

The Complainant represented himself at the hearing. The Respondent was represented by its managing director Mr. Anto Romaniuk (aka Keogh). Both parties gave evidence on affirmation. The Complainant was unable to establish a video link but attended by way of voice only. The Respondent did not object to the hearing proceeding on that basis. 

At the hearing the third complaint CA-00069064-003 made pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act 1917 was withdrawn by the Complainant. The remaining claims in respect of Terms of Employment and Minimum Notice proceeded and were fully contested.

The Complainant contended that his start date, hours of work and remuneration terms were agreed verbally between himself and Mr. Keogh at a meeting which took place on the 15th of October 2024. The Complainant contended that his start date was agreed as the 24th of October 2024. He also said that this was the date of commencement which he provided to Revenue. 

 In his WRC Complaint Form the Complainant stated that his gross weekly remuneration was € 329.08 per week. 

The Complainant was dismissed without notice and without reference to procedures of any sort, with immediate effect on the 25th of January 2025. He claimed that he had at least 13 weeks service when he was dismissed and that he should have been but was not provided with minimum notice of not less than one week and accordingly he sought compensation representing one week’s unpaid notice.

Whilst accepting that he did receive a contract setting out the terms of his employment, the Complainant contended that this contract did not accurately reflect the terms of employment which had been agreed, nor had the Respondent signed the contract. 

The Respondent accepted that the commencement date on the contract which was sent to the Complainant was the 24th of October 2024. However he said that the parties verbally agreed a subsequent start date which was later, being the 29th of October 2024 and moreover the Complainant did not complete his first job for the Respondent until the 5th of November 2024. Furthermore the Respondent referred to two text messages as follows:

On the 7th of October 2024 the Complainant asked Mr. Keogh what his start date was and Mr. Keogh replied, “Last Tuesday”, which date was the 29th of October 2024.

On the 4th of November 2024 Mr. Keogh asked the Complainant is he was still working at his other employment (a creche) and the Complainant’s reply was “Yes, back today”

Mr. Keogh contended that these texts and his own sworn evidence established that the start date must have been either the 29th of October 2024 or the 5th of November 2024 and either way, on the date of his dismissal on the  25th of January 2025, the Complainant had less than 13 weeks continuous service and thus had not acquired any right to Minimum notice pursuant to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973.

As to compliance with the TE Act, the Respondent asserted that the contract provided to the Complainant fairly and accurately reflected the terms of the agreement made by the parties and the work actually performed by the Complainant and thus a breach of the TE Act was denied. 

The date of commencement is relevant to the findings made in both claims below. Having considered the evidence of the parties I find, on the balance of probability, that I prefer the evidence of the Respondent to the effect that the actual commencement date of the Complainant’s employment was at the very earliest the 29th of October 2024.

Applying the above finding to the minimum notice claim it follows that the Complainant, at the date of his dismissal had not acquired at least 13 weeks’ service and for this reason he was not entitled to compensation and thus the MN Act was not breached by the Respondent.

Applying the finding as to the start date the contract as furnished to the Complainant had the incorrect start date. Furthermore, I accept the Complainant’s evidence that he did not receive a contract (or other written terms of employment) which was signed by the employer. The commencement date and the requirement for the written terms to be signed by or on behalf of the employer are mandatory requirements as provided for respectively, by Section 3 subsections (1A) paragraph (i) and subsection (4) of the TE Act (as amended). Accordingly, I accept the Complainant’s argument that the Contract given to the Complainant did not reflect the terms actually agreed and further the document given to the Complainant was not signed by the Respondent. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent was in breach of those provisions of the TE Act, that the Complainant’s claim under that Act is well-founded and that the Complainant is entitled to compensation for breach of his statutory rights.

Pursuant to Section 7 (2) (d) of the Act I have jurisdiction in the event of a contravention under of section 3 (as so found) to order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as I consider just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances but not exceeding 4 weeks' remuneration. 

In his WRC Complaint Form the Complainant stated that his gross weekly remuneration was €329.08 per week.  However, there is another document on file setting out the total gross remuneration paid to the Complainant for the duration of his employment for the twelve-week period commencing on the week ending the 10th of November 2024 up to the week ending the 26th of January 2025. The average pay during this twelve-week period was €210.85 and by these means I find that the average weekly wage applicable to the Complainant employment was that sum.

By way of redress and noting that the Complainant was put to inconvenience including the institution of the within claim by the failure to provide the details required by the TE Act I deem the sum of €300.00 to be just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances and the Respondent is directed to pay the said sum to the Complainant by way of non-remuneration based (and thus free of tax) compensation for breach of his statutory rights. 

CA-00069064-001 - Complaint well founded. The Respondent is directed to pay the sum of €300.00 to the Complainant by way of non-remuneration-based compensation for breach of his statutory rights.

CA-00069064-002- The Act was not contravened.

Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 (as amended) - Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994-2014 – Sections (3) and (7)