ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057743

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Brunno Martins	Ashford Investments Limited trading as the Eden House Gastro Pub

Representatives

Roberta Urbon HR Consultancy

Complaints:

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-00070068-001	18/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00070068-002	18/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00070068-003	18/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005	CA-00070068-004	18/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00070068-005	18/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00070068-006	18/03/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/10/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee, of a complaint or complaints of contravention - by an employer - of an Act or Acts 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 who will refer said complaints to the Adjudication services. I can confirm that I am an Adjudicator appointed to hear such matters, and I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaints made.

As part of this obligation I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing as well as any written submissions disclosed in advance of the hearing.

The first two complaints referred for adjudication are 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.

The 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 herein was made 18th of March 2025, 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 4th of March 2025. The complaint has therefore been brought within the appropriate timeframe, and I have the jurisdiction to her the complaint.

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.

In addition to the foregoing the Complainant has brought a complaint relating to a contravention of The Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and in particular to a contravention under Section 14 of the act which provides for compensation for working on a Sunday and provides for a number of ways in which the compensation can be calculated including the payment of an allowance, an increased rate of pay, or paid time in lieu.

Pursuant to Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (as amended), a decision of an adjudication officer as provided for under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act shall do one or more of the following:

(i) Declare the complaint was or was not well founded;
(ii) Require the Employer to comply with the relevant provision;
(iii) Require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances but not exceeding 2 years remuneration.

The Adjudication Officer must be aware of applicable time limits and in this regard, the Workplace Relations Act specifies at Section 41 (6) that (subject to s.s.8) an Adjudication Officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to said Adjudication Officer after the expiration of the period of six months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the Complaint relates. I am therefore looking at a period of time running from the 19th of September 2024 to the 18th of March 2025

I am aware of the line of authorities which provides that the payment of a compensation for any requirement to work on a Sunday (“a Sunday premium”) should be discernible and identifiable and should not be somehow inferred from the overall rate of pay.

The Complainant has brought an additional claim for adjudication as provided for under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 and the referral has been made within six months of the date on which this claim accrued to the Complainant. In particular the complaint is that the Employee did not receive the appropriate Statutory Minimum notice (or payment in lieu) on termination of the employment and as outlined in Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973. Where the Adjudicator finds that the section was contravened by the Employer in relation to the Employee who presented the complaint, the Adjudication officer can direct that the employer concerned pay to the Employee compensation for any loss sustained by the Employee by reason of the contravention.

The Act requires a minimum period of notice to terminate the employment of an employee who has been employed for a qualifying period.

Where the employee has been in continuous service for a period of more than thirteen weeks and less than two years he will be entitled to one week of notice.

The Complainant herein has also submitted a complaint under Section 27 of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 (referenced in aforementioned schedule 5) which protects employees from being penalised for having acted in compliance with the SHW Act, for having performed any duty under the SHW Act, for having made a complaint (or other representation) under the SHW Act (to a safety rep, an employer or the Health and Safety Authority) or who has otherwise engaged in an exercise which might be deemed a protected act for the purposes of compliance with the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. An Employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation in such circumstances.

“Penalisation” in the context of s. 27 of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 would include (but is not limited to) suspension, lay-off, demotion, transfer of duty, imposition of discipline or penalty and coercion or intimidation. The penalisation will usually be an identifiable act or omission on the part of the employer which affects, to his or her detriment, the employee. The word “detriment” is given its ordinary and natural meaning of causing harm or damage (Per Hyland J. in the case of Conway -v- Department of Agriculture 2020 IEHC665)

Section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 confirms that a decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act in relation to a complaint of a contravention of Section 27 of the SHW Act shall do one or more of the following –

Declare the complaint was well founded.

Require the Employer to take a specific course of Action.

Require the Employer to pay to the Employee compensation of such an amount that the Adjudicator considers just and equitable in the circumstances.

The initial burden of proof herein is on the complainant to establish the existence a protected act and a detriment. If and only if the complainant establishes a protected act and a detriment does the burden shift to the respondent to put forward evidence that the detriment suffered was not due to the protected act being the operative cause.

The Complainant’s final complaint concerned a claim for discrimination under the Employment Equality Acts. This complaint was withdrawn at the outset.

Background:

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

In line with the coming into effect of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 on the 29th of July 2021, I can confirm that the witness herein was required to give his evidence on oath or affirmation. This was done in anticipation of the fact that there may have been a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to the complaint. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 18th of March 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.

At the completion of the hearing, I did take the time to carefully review all the matters presented to me in the course of the two days of hearing. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that have been presented to me and instead tend to concentrate on the issues which have guided me to the final recommendations being made. In this regard, I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was fully represented. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to swear make an Affirmation to tell the truth. I was provided with a comprehensive submission on the date of the hearing. The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form. I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case – mainly WhatsApp messages. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. In fact, as there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent none of the Complainant’s evidence was contradicted.

The Complainant alleges that he ultimately had to hand in his notice in this employment by reason of the lack of support shown to him by the on-site Director Z, who failed to prevent the Complainant’s line Manager from undermining and humiliating the Complainant in his role.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. The burden shifted in respect of the penalisation claim.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 28th of August 2025 - and posted to the registered office address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form and subsequently confirmed online.

The Respondent has not responded to any correspondence sent by the WRC. Phone calls placed to the premises and to one of the Directors on the morning of the hearing were not picked up.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant was engaged by the Respondent Gastro pub as an experienced barman. He commenced his employment on the understanding that he would be working for a forty-hour week, and he commenced this employment on or about the 7th of June 2024. By the end of his employment the Complainant was earning €660.00 per week gross.

Unfortunately, the Complainant and his girlfriend were being evicted, and it was in these circumstances that the Complainant came to accept an offer of to rent a room in the house of one of his new colleagues - IV.

This arrangement did not work out, and I have formed the view that the relationship between the Complainant and the lady - IV -turned very bad as a result of the fallout around this rental situation. I understand that before the Christmas of 2024 the Complainant had moved elsewhere so that he and IV were no longer sharing a house. However, relations between them were now quite bad.

In the workplace two Managers with whom the Complainant worked quite well left the premises. The Gastropub owner - Zel – asked the Complainant to step up into Management in and around November of 2024. The Complainant was very happy to do this, and he worked very hard for the entire Christmas period.

It seems that Zel also promoted IV, and to the Complainant’s dismay, his ex-landlady was promoted to the position of General Manager. The Complainant gave uncontradicted evidence that Iv started a campaign to effectively freeze the Complainant out of the workplace. The Complainant was taken out form behind the Bar and placed on the floor or in the cellar. Critically for the Complainant was the fact that IV managed rosters and started significantly reducing his hours so that he was unable to meet financial liabilities. The Complainant gave evidence that he repeatedly raised this issue with his Employer Zel but that Zel had no interest in hearing negative things about IV.

It is worth noting that the Complainant was not provided with a formal Contract of Employment and so had no idea what his terms and conditions were and no sense of what changes the Employer could and could not make. The Complainant was finding that his hours were being punitively reduced with no explanation being given. The Complainant was not provided with a staff handbook and had no sense what options he had pursuant to dignity at work complaint. To his mind the Complainant could see no alternative other than to tender his resignation. The most senior person on the premises – Zel – was certainly not taking his issues seriously.

The resignation was tendered on Tuesday the 18th of February with the Complainant volunteering to work a two week notice period up to the 4th of March so as not to leave his Employer in the lurch. As it happens the employment was essentially cut off midway through this employment/notice period.

It is clear to me that the Complainant (based on his own account) was treated very badly by his Employer herein. The Complainant had nowhere to turn in the workplace and had no sight of the documentation - handbooks, policies, Contract of Employment – which might inform him as to his options.

I was not however persuaded that the Complainant had been somehow penalised for having acted in compliance with the SHW Act, for having performed any duty under the SHW Act, or for having made a complaint (or other representation) under the SHW Act (to a safety rep, an employer or the Health and Safety Authority) or who has otherwise engaged in an exercise which might be deemed a protected act for the purposes of compliance with the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. The Employer herein opted not to get involved in a dispute between two employees which had arisen outside of the context of the workplace. I do not think this stance unreasonable. I have, in fact, no sense that an issue connected to the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act arose at all.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints 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-00070068-001 – The complaint herein well founded. The Complainant did not receive a statement in writing of his terms of employment. I direct a payment of compensation in the sum of €1,320.00 as being just and equitable in all the circumstances.

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

CA-00070068-002 - The complaint herein well founded. The Complainant was not notified of a change to his terms of employment regarding hours of work. I direct a payment of compensation in the sum of €1,320.00 is just and equitable in all the circumstances.

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

CA-00070068-003 – The complaint herein is well founded. The Complainant gave evidence that he worked most Sudays in the six-month period before the complaint issued with no premium recorded on his payslip. I direct a payment of compensation in the sum of €500.00 is just and equitable in all the circumstances.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00070068-004 – The complaint herein is not well founded.

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

CA-00070068-005 – The complaint herein is well founded. The Complainant was not allowed to completely work out his notice period and was not paid in lieu. I direct that the Respondent pays compensation in the amount of €500.00.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00070068-006 - This complaint was withdrawn by the Complainant in advance of the hearing.

Dated: 25-11-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Key Words: