ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057549

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Jose Tomas Sierralta Madriz	AP Haslam

Representatives

Self

Sinead Cockram, The HR Suite

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-00069987-001	13/03/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/09/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

The parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.

The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.

The Respondent was represented by Ms Sinead Cockram, The HR suite and Mr Keith Haslam, General Manager. The Complainant represented himself.

While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Mr Jose Tomas Sierralta Madriz as “the Complainant” and to AP Haslam as “the Respondent.”

The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a general operative by the Respondent. He commenced employment on 29/04/2024. The Complainant was paid €600.63 gross per week. The Complainant submitted a complaint to the Workplace Commission on 13/03/2025 stating that he did not receive a statement of his core terms of employment.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant gave evidence on oath. He confirmed that he commenced employment as a general operative with the Respondent on 29/04/2024. He understood that he would receive a contract of employment but he did not receive one. He made many requests for this but did not receive anything.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent specialises in Industrial Electrical Components and Solutions. The Complainant was employed as a Workshop Operative from 29/04/2024. The Respondent accepts that the Complainant was not issued with his written terms and conditions within one month of his start date as required by the Act. The Respondent did try to rectify the matter in good faith with the Complainant but he did not accept his contract of employment. Subsequent attempts by the Respondent to resolve the matter without recourse to the WRC were also rejected by the Respondent.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00069987-001: This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

The Complainant submits that he did not receive a document which complies with Section 3 of the Act. Section 3(1A) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 states that-

(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 rate or method of calculation of the employee’s remuneration 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.

Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 provides for further details to be given to an employee not later than one month after the commencement of the employee’s employment.

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 Act also provides that an employer must notify the employee of any changes in the particulars already detailed in the statement of terms.

It was not disputed by the Respondent that the Complainant did not receive such a document. As there is an onus on the Respondent to provide a signed and dated copy and to retain such a document for at least a year after the employment ends, I find that there was a contravention of the Act during the relevant period. Since employment has ended, there is no longer a need to compel the provision of the terms.

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. I am guided by the Labour Court in Morehampton Foods Ltd v Gibbons TED 18/2017, where the Court confirmed that a failure to comply with s.2 of the Act “constitutes a single contravention of the Act” and that it was not the case that every omission from a statement mandated by s.3 constituted a stand-alone infringement to which the statutory limit on compensation should be separately applied. Having considered the evidence in this case and the attempts by the Respondent to engage with the Complainant to resolve matters I believe that the full compensatory limit under section 7(2) should not be applied. I therefore order that the Respondent pay the Complainant the sum of €1,201.26 representing two week’s full-time remuneration which I consider to be a just and equitable sum having regard to all the circumstances in this case.

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.

I find that this complaint is well founded. I therefore order that the Respondent pay the Complainant the sum of €1,201.26 representing two week’s full-time remuneration which I consider to be a just and equitable sum having regard to all the circumstances in this case.

Dated: 09-10-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Key Words:

Terms and conditions of employment.