ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058268
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Carlos Molina Reus | AP Haslam Ltd |
Representatives | Self-represented | The HR Suite |
Complaint:
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-00070829-001 | 15/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kara Turner
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.
In attendance at a hearing in Lansdowne House on 11 September 2025 were Mr Carlos Reus (the “complainant”), the representative for AP Haslam Ltd (the “respondent”), Ms Sinead Cockram of The HR Suite, and Mr Keith Haslam of the respondent company.
The hearing was held in public and there were no special circumstances warranting otherwise, or the anonymisation of this decision.
Background:
The complaint is that the respondent did not provide the complainant with a statement in writing with particulars of terms of employment in accordance with section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, as amended. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant was employed with the respondent from June 2024 until 9 May 2025. The respondent issued the complainant with a written contract of employment in April/May 2025. The complainant submitted that the respondent’s failure to issue him with a contract of employment in writing had caused problems for the complainant in terms of his personal circumstances, and that the contract only issued after referral of the complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent accepted that the complainant was not issued with a written statement as required by the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. The respondent’s HR administrator sought to rectify this in April 2025 by issuing a written contract of employment, which the complainant declined to accept. The complainant did not accept the respondent’s offer of a payment equivalent to four weeks’ pay, which the respondent offered in good faith and in an attempt to resolve the matter without recourse to the Workplace Relations Commission. The respondent remained committed to resolving the matter and was willing to pay the sum previously offered to the complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The material facts in relation to this complaint are not in dispute. The complainant’s remuneration in employment with the respondent was €658.00 gross per week. The respondent did not meet its obligations to the complainant under section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, as amended, (the “1994 Act”) by providing the complainant, not later than one month after the commencement of his employment, a statement in writing containing certain particulars of the terms of his employment. The complainant referred his complaint in this regard to the Commission on 15 April 2025. It was in or around the time of the complaint referral that the respondent sought to rectify the matter by issuing the complainant with a contract of employment in writing. The complainant confirmed that he wished to proceed with an adjudication of his complaint and that he did not accept the respondent’s offer in resolution of the complaint. On the uncontested facts before me, in accordance with section 7 of the 1994 Act, I find that the complaint of a contravention of section 3 of the Act is well founded, and I consider it just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances to order the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €2,600.00, which sum does not exceed 4 weeks’ remuneration calculated in accordance with the regulations referred to in section 7(2)(d) of the 1994 Act. |
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.
For the reasons set out above, my decision is that the complaint of a contravention of section 3 of the 1994 Act is well founded, and I order the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation of €2,600.00 in relation to the contravention. |
Dated: 30-09-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kara Turner
Key Words:
Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 – Section 3 - Statement in writing of particulars |