TE/24/83 | DETERMINATION NO. TED2519 |
SECTION 44, WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT (INFORMATION) ACTS 1994 TO 2014
PARTIES:
MERCATO LTD.
AND
PETER OGURČÁK
DIVISION:
Chairman: | Ms Connolly |
Employer Member: | Mr O'Brien |
Worker Member: | Ms Hannick |
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00046079 (CA-00056547-006)
BACKGROUND:
The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court on the 21 August 2024.
A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 27 August 2025.
The following is the Labour Court's Decision.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by Peter Ogurčák (“the Complainant”) of a decision of an Adjudication Officer under the Terms of Employment Information Act 1994 (the Act) in relation to a complaint made by him by against his former employer Mercato Limited (“the Respondent”).
The Adjudication Officer decided that the complaint was not well founded.
Peter Ogurčák appealed that decision to the Labour Court. A hearing of the appeal together with three linked appeals EDA2563,TED2518 and DWT2537 was conducted by remote hearing on 27 August 2025. Peter Ogurčák and Alan Leahy, a director with the Respondent company gave evidence under affirmation.
- Background
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as an IT engineer on 4 December 2014. In July 2021, by agreement with the Respondent, the Complainant relocated to Slovakia to work from his home office. The Complainant resigned his employment on 26 December 2022.
Although Complainant made references to s.4 of the Act in his submission to the Court, he confirmed at the hearing that his complaint relates to s.5 of the Act. He submits that he was not notified of a change to his terms and conditions of employment as required at s.5 when the Respondent ceased making an annual bonus payment to him. The Respondent refutes that assertion.
- Summary Position of the Complainant
The Complainant gave evidence that he received a ‘bonus’ of €3,000 per annum before he relocated to Slovakia in 2021. The Complainant submits that the bonus was an implicit term of his contract of employment. On moving to Slovakia, the Respondent ceased paying him the bonus payment and failed to notify him of the change to his terms and conditions of employment as required by the Act.
- Summary Position of the Respondent
The Respondent denies the Complainant’s claims.
Mr. Alan Leahy gave evidence that the ‘bonus’ referred to was not in fact a bonus but instead were subsistence payments applicable when a worker worked off site at client sites. When the Complainant relocated to work from his home office in Slovakia, he ceased conducting visits to client sites and was no longer eligible to claim subsistence payments. As the payments did not form part of the Complainant’s terms & conditions of employment, there was no requirement to notify him of any changes.
- The Law
Section 5 of the Act provides as follows:
Notification of changes.
- (1) to subsection (2), whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than—
- (a) the day on which the change takes effect, or
(b) where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month, the time of the employee’s departure.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a change occurring in provisions of statutes or instruments made under statute, other than a registered employment agreement or employment regulation order, or of any other laws or of any administrative provisions or collective agreements referred to in the statement given under section 3 or 4.
- Deliberations
The Complainant submitted no evidence to support his assertion that an annual bonus payment formed part his terms and conditions of employment. He provided no evidence of any changes to his terms and conditions of employment.
Accordingly, the Court finds the Complaint is not well founded.
- Findings
The Court finds the compliant is not well founded.
The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.
The Court so decides.
![]() | Signed on behalf of the Labour Court |
![]() | |
![]() | Katie Connolly |
AL | ______________________ |
12 September 2025 | Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.