ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00061086
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Marco Antonio Martinez | Vor Purty Taverns Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
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-00073861-002 | 28/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/02/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
On 28 July 2025 Mr. Martinez (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 against VOR Purty Taverns Ltd t/a The Purty Kitchen (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). In accordance with Section 21 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, a hearing was held on 3 February 2026, at which time I enquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me, any evidence relevant to the complaints.
This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous provisions) Act 2020 and SI359/2020, which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski V Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24, the parties were informed in advance that the hearing would normally be in public, testimony under oath or affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. At the adjudication hearing, the parties were advised that in accordance with Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021, hearings before the WRC are now held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised. The parties are named in the headings of the decision, the terms Complainant and Respondent are used hereinafter to describe the parties.
The parties were also advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021, grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation, the acquired affirmation/oath was administered to all those who gave testimony and the legal perils of committing perjury were explained to all parties. Both parties were offered and availed of the opportunity to cross examine the evidence.
The Complainant attended the hearing and was unrepresented. Ms. E Purty attended on behalf of the Respondent. The parties and the Adjudication Officer were assisted throughout the hearing by Ms. AM Maries, Interpreter.
Background:
The Complainant was an employee with the Respondent from 15 June 2025 until 4 July 2025. He alleged that he was never provided with a statement of his terms of employment.
The Respondent denied the allegation and submitted that the Complainant was provided with a contract of employment but that he failed to sign and return that contract.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant contended that he did not receive a statement in writing of his terms of employment since the commencement of his employment on 15 June 2025. In his complaint form he stated that he only filled out an employee details for upon commencement of employment but that he did not receive any formal contract or written document outlining his role, working hours, pay rate, holiday entitlements or notice period.
At hearing and under affirmation the Complainant gave evidence that he did not receive a contract of employment and that he experienced a number or issues in the employment as a consequence. He confirmed that he commenced employment on 15 June 2025 and that he was paid in cash initially. Under cross examination the Complainant advised the hearing that if he was issued with a contract he did not remember this occurring. He stated that he did recall being issued with an employee form but that the form did not contain any information in relation to his terms and conditions. He stated that he completed and returned that form and that he was never given a copy of same. The Complainant gave evidence that as a consequence of not being issued with a contract he was paid incorrectly and was not activated on Revenue.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Ms. Purty gave evidence under affirmation that while this was a long time ago there had been contact with the Complainant since he left and that he had been in touch with the Head Chef. She acknowledged that there had been errors in relation to his pay but she confirmed that these errors had been rectified.
Ms. Purty gave evidence that there was a clock in system for staff and that unfortunately the Complainant had been assigned an incorrect number which had resulted in underpayment. She provided a copy of a bank transfer to demonstrate that all underpayment had been addressed. She confirmed that when the error first came to attention the shortfall in wages had been offset by a cash payment .
Ms. Purty gave evidence that she recalled giving the Complainant a contract of employment and that she had retained a copy on her records. She advised that as the Complainant only remained in employment for a short period he never returned a signed copy of that contract.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant alleged that he never received a statement of his core terms of employment and that there were negative implications for him arising therefrom.
Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act states:
“3.- (1) An employer shall, not later than 2 months 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…”
While the Respondent position was that it denied the allegation and that the Complainant was issued with a contract which he failed to sign and return, there was no evidence presented to support this contention. The Respondent did not provide a copy of the unsigned contract nor any covering letter making reference to the provision of the contract. In that context it is largely a case of one persons’ word against another when it comes to the veracity of the matter. Ms. Purty, on behalf of the Respondent was consistent in her evidence while the Complainant under cross examination altered his position from one of certainty to not being able to recall receiving a contract.
In any event, the Complainant commenced employment on 15 June 2025 and, in accordance with the above provisions of the Act the Respondent was obliged to provided him with a written statement of his terms of employment by no later than 15 August 2025. As the Complainant left the Respondent employment prior to that date it cannot be said that the Respondent breached the Act and accordingly I so find.
|
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.
In the circumstances outlined above I have found that the Respondent did not breach the provisions of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act and so it is my decision that this complaint is not well founded.
|
Dated: 10th of April 2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
Written statement of terms of employment |