Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Liam  Rice

Jjb Transport

Representatives

Self Represented

John Fallon Solicitor

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-00069853-001

08/03/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00070721-001

10/04/2025

The Complainant was employed as a Milk Collection Truck Driver and claimed he was unfairly dismissed and did not receive any written terms and conditions of employment.

The Complainant was employed from February 4th 2019 to March 3rd 2025  as a Milk Collection Truck Driver. He claimed he never received any written terms and conditions of employment and denied receiving any written contract of employment in 2019.  He claimed he was unfairly dismissed from his employment. The Complainant made his case out through oral evidence, which is documented below.

A Legal Representative came on record for the Complainant in October 2025 and came off record in February 2026.

The Respondent stated that they had provided the Complainant with written terms and conditions of employment in 2019 and he refused to sign them. The Respondent then subsequently gave the Complainant written terms of employment but he again refused to sign them.

The Respondent denied that the Complainant was dismissed and set out their case through oral evidence, which is documented below.

Neither party made a written submission in advance of the Hearing so the case rests solely on the evidence provided to the Hearing.

Terms of Employment complaint. CA-00069853-001

Relevant Law

 The Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (as amended), Section 3(1A) provides,  that that an employer must, 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 specified particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment.  A statement furnished by an employer to an employee under s. 3 must be in writing and be signed and dated by or on behalf of the employer.

 A decision of an Adjudication Officer under s. 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of s.3 must do one or more of the following:

 “(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded . .

.(e) order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. . . . ”

 Findings

This complaint was brought outside the statutory six months allowed to bring a complaint but I find that this breach is a continuing breach and I have jurisdiction to make a Decision on the complaint. As noted above, S 3 of the Act requires employers to give or cause to be given to an employee a written statement of terms of employment detailing core terms within 5 days of starting their employment, with the remaining terms required to be given to the employee within one month.  It is the Complainant’s case that he did not receive the statement required to be given under s. 3(1A) of the Act or the statement required to be given under s. 3(1) of the Act.  This was refuted by the Respondent. In the absence of any written evidence of the actual contract being given to the Complainant, I find in favour of the Complainant and in the particular circumstances of this case consider that award an 4,000 Euros is the just and equitable award for breach of the Act.

Unfair Dismissal complaint CA-00070721-001

Relevant Law;

The Law.

“6.1. Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

(a) the capability, competence or qualifications of the employee for performing work of a kind which he was employed by the Employer to do.

(b) the conduct of the Employee

(c) the redundancy of the employee and

(d) the employee being unable to work or continue to work in a position which he held without contravention by him or by his employer of a duty or restriction imposed by or under any statute or instrument under statute.

At the completion of the hearing, I did take the time to carefully review all the oral evidence given by the parties. 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 I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings.  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…”. 

Findings;

The Owner of the Respondent business, Mr. John Barry gave evidence that he never dismissed the Complainant.  He advised the Hearing that the Complainant took 7 weeks off work and submitted no sickness certificate nor advised when he would be returning to work. He advised the Complainant took the 8th June to the 17th July (peak season) off and worked till the end of November. He advised the Complainant would not share the company lorry assigned to him with anyone and that he was never given a P45. He advised he considered him still an employee of the company and was never dismissed. He advised the Complainant was paid up to March 2025 and never came back to work. He advised he understood the Complainant to have set up a company in 2023 but failed to secure business.

On cross examination Mr. Barry stated he stopped paying wages to the Complainant in February 2025 as the Complainant had not come back to work. He advised the Complainant earned 87,120 Euros in 2024 and that he would pay the Complainant at different times by agreement. He advised the Complainant did not work in January and February 2025.

The Complainant gave evidence he worked double shifts and at times had to beg for his wages. He advised he felt pushed out of his job by the actions of the Owner. He advised he went working part time for two other Haulers for 3 days a week and earned about 500 Euros per week. He advised he had done a few loads for other people but was not paid for them.

Ms. Lorraine Alymer, the Complainants Partner, gave evidence to the Hearing. She advised that the Complainant had broken his ribs and she was a Mid Wife and advised that the Complainant was not able to get up in a truck at the time. She advised she rang the Owner and was told “what do you want me to do about that”.   She advised the Complainant returned to work for a few days but was unable to work and they thought more damage had been done and that an MRI report was available. On cross examination the Witness was asked did she text any of this to Mr. Barry and the Witness advised no, that she rang the Owner with the information.

The Complainant was asked about his obligation to submit medical/sickness certificates and the Complainant advised that he was told he was not required to give one. The Complainant advised that the Owner wanted to hold back wages and that he did not want to work 7 days a week and could not get relief.

The parties gave evidence on the issue of the use of the lorry by another person and the Complainant stated this would reduce his income by half and the Respondent stated the Complainant refused point blank to share his truck with anyone.

Having considered the evidence of both parties I have concluded that the evidence of the Respondent Owner is the more credible in the circumstances of this case. It appears that the Complainant was extremely well paid and sought to set up his own company to deliver milk and that he was employed on a continuous but mainly seasonal basis. The fact that there is no evidence to support that an actual dismissal took place is key to my decision in this case. There is no evidence put forward by the Complainant of a verbal or written dismissal. The Complainant was out of work on sick leave but never submitted any sick certificates and cited being taken off a What’s App group as the main ground for thinking his employment had been terminated. Ongoing issues between the parties about the use of the Respondent’s Truck and when wages were to be paid seems to have caused understandable conflict between the parties.  The Complainants involvement with other Haulers showed he was able to work for others. His evidence he did this for no payment, in some cases, is not credible.

While the Complainant was clearly unhappy and upset about his removal from the Whats App group, the Adjudicator has some difficulty with his assertion that the Respondent’s actions amounted to a dismissal or gave rise to such a fundamental breach of his contract of employment that the trust between the partes was irrevocably broken. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how his removal from the WhatsApp group prevented him from carrying out his duties. I find that his removal from the group did not give rise to a breach of his contractual terms of employment or represented such a breach of trust such that he was entitled to regard himself as having been dismissed by the Respondent. With regard to the payment of wages it seems both parties had agreed arrangements regarding timing of pay to suit the parties and this is not fundamental to the case.

Having regard to the facts of this case and the high bar set by the authorities in constructive dismissal cases, the Adjudicator finds that the Respondent did not repudiate the Complainant contract of employment or behave in such an unreasonable manner such as to warrant the Complainant’s view that his employment had terminated. This was supported by the Respondent evidence that in his view the Complainant had remained in his employment, which of course has now come to an end.

My conclusion is the Complainant was not dismissed but terminated his own employment by his actions and therefore has no grounds for an unfair dismissal complaint.  

Accordingly, the Adjudicator finds that the complaint for unfair dismissal is not well founded.

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 in favour of the Complainant and award him 4,000 Euros for breach of the Act. I have decided that this is an equitable relief given the long standing nature of the complaint.  (CA-00069853-001)

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977. I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.  (CA-00070721-001)

Unfair Dismissal