Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Aoife  Murtagh

A Gorman Carpets and Bedding Limited  

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

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-00066341-001

27/09/2024

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 13th August 2024. The Complainant was a full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly payment of €460.00 per week. The Complainant’s employment ended on 24th September 2024.

On 27th September 2024 the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent failed to issue her with a written statement of terms of employment, in contravention of legislation. By response, the Respondent accepted this allegation on a factual basis and put forward various matters in mitigation.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 11th March 2025. This hearing was heard in person at the Mullingar Courthouse, Co. Westmeath.

Both parties provided brief submissions at the hearing of the matter. No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings. 

The Complainant stated that she did not receive a written statement of terms of employment in contravention of the Act. The Complainant stated that she requested the same from the Respondent and was duly informed that contracts are issued one an employee passes their probationary period.  The Complainant sought to escalate this matter; however, her employment was terminated prior to any contractual documentation being received.

By response, the Managing Director of the Respondent accepted that the Complainant did not receive a statement of terms of employment. In this respect, he submitted that the company was in the process of engaging with a third party to comply with the requirement of the legislation. He further submitted that the Complainant’s tenure was relatively brief, and any breach of the legislation is correspondingly minor.

Regarding the present case, the Respondent has accepted the Complainant did not receive terms of employment within the prescribed timeframe or at all. In such circumstances I find that the present complaint is well-founded.

Regarding mitigation, the Respondent submitted that given the duration of the Complainant’s employment, any breach of the legislation in minor in nature. Having considered this argument, I find that I do not agree with the same, the legislation provides for two timeframes for the receipt of certain terms, an initial five-day period and a longer one-month period. In the present case the Respondent is in breach of both. I further note that the Complainant sought to raise this issue internally and had her concerns dismissed. Finally, while the Complainant’s employment was brief in duration, this in no way diminishes her rights, or the Respondent obligations to her under the present legislation. While I further note that the Respondent has engaged a third party to ensure compliance going forward, this does not mitigate the present breach of the legislation.

I find that the complaint is well founded. Regarding redress, the Act permits an award of compensation no greater than h equivalent of four week’s remuneration. In circumstances whereby the Complainant did not receive a statement of any description in the course of her employment, I award her the sum of €1,840 in compensation.

Terms of Employment, Mitigation