Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Hattie Romer

Chanath & Slanco Ltd T/A The Field

Representatives

 Self

N/A

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00074714-001

22/08/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00074714-002

22/08/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00074714-003

22/08/2025

The Complainant commenced work with the Respondent on 29 April 2024 and submitted a complaint form to the WRC on 22 August 2025 alleging unfair dismissal and breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

The Respondent was not present at the hearing.

The Complainant gave her evidence by way of civil affirmation.

In her complaint form, the Complainant submits that on the evening of 15 August, she contacted the Respondent by text message to advise that she would be unable to attend her scheduled shift on the following day as she needed to take a personal day due to mental health difficulties. The Respondent replied requesting that she attend work as it was expected to be a busy day. The Complainant states that she did not engage in any further communication that evening as she was dealing with personal issues at the time and it was late at night when the Respondent contacted her.

The Complainant attended for work as scheduled on the morning of Sunday 17 August. Upon arrival, she was instructed to leave the premises immediately and was provided with no explanation for this instruction. The Complainant submits that no meaningful discussion took place and that she was simply told to leave. She subsequently sought a conversation regarding what had occurred and raised concerns she had been experiencing within the workplace, including issues involving other members of staff. The discussion became heated and a brief altercation occurred involving another chef. The Complainant states that following this incident, the Respondent failed to contact her, provide clarification regarding her employment status, or engage in any meaningful communication concerning the situation.

The Complainant further submits that she attended the Respondent’s premises on 19 August to provide a medical certificate and again on 21 August to collect her payslip. On both occasions, she sought clarification regarding her employment status, but the Respondent refused to engage in any discussion. The Complainant states that she indicated a willingness to resolve matters privately and avoid pursuing the matter further; however, she did not receive any confirmation of such an arrangement and no further contact was made by the Respondent. She submitted her complaint form on 22 August 2025.

The Complainant also submits that throughout her employment there was no structured system governing working time and breaks. She states that employees were regularly told that if the business was busy they would continue working, and if it was quiet they might be allowed a break. She submits that there were no set break times, no clocking-in or clocking-out system, and that employees could be required to work between five and six hours before receiving a break. She further states that employees were generally not permitted to leave the premises during breaks and that permission to leave, for example to visit a nearby shop, was only granted on rare occasions.

The Complainant further submits that she was never provided with a written contract of employment at the commencement of her employment nor at any point during her employment, which lasted in excess of one year. She states that she repeatedly requested contractual documentation but was not provided with either a written or electronic contract.

Evidence of the Complainant

The Complainant reiterated in evidence what she had set out in her complaint form. She clarified that the date her employment ended was 16 August 2025, and not 2024, as stated in the complaint form.

She also described working for the Respondent for over a year and a half and that she considered herself to be a hard worker. She stated that when she returned to work on Sunday 17 August she was told to leave. She said that a heated argument followed so she got her last pay cheque and left. No reason was provided to her for the termination of her employment, nor even proper confirmation that she had been dismissed. She said that she received nothing in writing over the whole year that she had been there.

The Complainant started a new position on 15 September 2025 at an increased rate of pay.

She said that she had also requested a contract but from the beginning to the end of the employment, she never received that.

Regarding breaks, the Complainant stated that she was not allowed to leave the premises for breaks and rarely got them in any case. She could be there for 10 hours or more in a day and not receive any break. She said that she never got a 30 minute break in her entire time with the Respondent. The attitude was “if it’s busy, then it’s busy and if it’s quiet, then it’s quiet”. There was also no method of clocking in or out to record hours and she was never scheduled for breaks.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. A hearing notification issued to the Respondent on 6 January 2026.

Seemingly in response to this notification, an email was received from O’Donnell Keane & Co on 7 January 2026. The email stated that the Respondent company had ceased trading. It stated that “The above named client has now ceased trading.”

A further email issued to the Respondent on 6 March 2026. This email contained a link to the remote hearing and a request that a list of attendees be provided.

In reply to that email, Ms. Caroline Quinn of O’Donnell Keane & Co stated as follows:

Marcel Chanath will not be available for this remote meeting as he will be undergoing surgery in solvakia. Marcel Slanco is not available next week as he is away. Please note that the company has ceased trading with effect from 31-12-2025. Both Marcels rang the number on the email and received no answer. Can you please cancel the meeting next week.

Mr. Conor Duffy from the WRC Adjudication Services replied to Ms. Quinn in the following terms:

We acknowledge receipt of your email received today seeking the postponement of the above referenced hearing. I note that are not on record for the parties in this case, as such, details cannot be discussed until you have done so. Having regard for the content of your email, and speaking generally, at this late stage, applications to postpone would need to be made in person (or remotely) to the Adjudicator on the day of the hearing. If you intend to do so, please come on record for the respondent, at which point a link to the hearing may be sent to you for the scheduled hearing. This would enable you to present your case for an adjournment or any concerns that you may have before the Adjudication Officer with seisin at the hearing.

Ms. Quinn’s reply stated only “Thanks Conor.”

The Respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing and no further representations or applications were made to postpone or adjourn the hearing.

Consequently, no sworn evidence from the Respondent was available to the Adjudication Officer at the hearing.

Based on the correspondence outlined in the Respondent section of this decision, I am satisfied that the Respondent had notice of the hearing and elected not to attend. This decision is therefore based solely on the sworn evidence of the Complainant. I cannot have regard to any written submissions or statements provided in advance of the hearing unless the party concerned attends and gives sworn evidence confirming their contents. As the Respondent did not attend, no sworn evidence was presented on its behalf. Consequently, the Complainant's evidence was not subject to cross-examination and, in the absence of any sworn evidence to the contrary, remains uncontested.

CA-00074714-001 – Complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

Section 2 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended, (the “1977 Act”) provides as follows:-

“dismissal”, in relation to an employee, means—

(a) the termination by his employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee,

I accept the uncontested evidence of the Complainant that her employment was terminated on 16 August 2025.

Section 6(1) the 1977 Act states that:

“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.”

Section 6(7) of the 1977 Act provides that in determining whether a dismissal is unfair, regard may be had:-

“(a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and

(b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in section 14(1) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice …”

The combined effect of the above-mentioned provisions is that the onus is on the employer to establish a fair dismissal. 

As the Respondent did not attend the hearing, there was no evidence before me to rebut the presumption that the dismissal was unfair. I therefore find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

Section 7 of the 1977 Act sets out the remedies available where an adjudication officer finds that a dismissal was unfair. The Act provides that an adjudication officer may order reinstatement, whereby the employee is returned to their former position as if the dismissal had not occurred, or re-engagement in either the same position or another suitable role. Alternatively, the adjudication officer may award compensation where this is considered the most appropriate remedy in the circumstances.

In assessing compensation, the Act requires consideration of the financial loss suffered by the employee as a result of the dismissal. Compensation must be just and equitable and may take account of a range of factors, including the extent to which the loss was caused by the employer's actions, whether the employee contributed to the loss or to the dismissal, the efforts made by the employee to mitigate their losses by seeking alternative employment, and the extent to which the employer complied with fair procedures and relevant codes of practice.

The Act also provides that "financial loss" includes both actual loss of earnings incurred since the dismissal and any future loss of income that can reasonably be attributed to the dismissal. It may also include losses relating to statutory employment rights, such as redundancy entitlements or pension-related benefits. In determining the appropriate level of compensation, regard must therefore be had to the overall circumstances of the case and the evidence relating to the employee's financial losses and mitigation efforts.

As the Complainant is engaged in new employment, it would be impractical to order reinstatement or reengagement. The appropriate remedy is therefore compensation.

The Complainant gave evidence that she secured alternative employment on 15 September 2025. She therefore suffered financial loss of four weeks (16 August – 15 September). The Complainant stated that her net pay was €588 per week. €588 x 4 = €2,352. I therefore award the Complainant compensation in the amount of €2,352 net for her unfair dismissal.

CA-00074714-002 – Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The cognisable period in this case, in other words the six months preceding the lodging of the complaint, is 23 February 2025 to 22 August 2025.

Section 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 provides that an employer may not require an employee to work for more than four and a half hours without receiving a break of at least 15 minutes. Where an employee works for more than six hours, they are entitled to a break of at least 30 minutes, which may include the initial 15-minute break. The Act also provides that a break taken at the end of the working day does not satisfy these statutory requirements. Accordingly, employees are entitled to receive their breaks during the course of their working day and employers are required to ensure that these minimum rest break entitlements are afforded.

In addition, the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 requires employers to maintain records of employees' working hours and rest breaks and to ensure compliance with the statutory provisions relating to working time and rest periods.

In the absence of any documentation being introduced into evidence to contradict the Complainant’s sworn evidence, it is accepted that she did not receive her statutory entitlement to breaks in the course of her employment.

Under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, where an adjudication officer finds that an employer has failed to provide the statutory rest breaks required by section 12 of the Act, the complaint may be declared well-founded and the Adjudication Officer may direct the employer to comply with the Act and/or award compensation that is just and equitable in all the circumstances. The compensation that may be awarded can be up to a maximum of two years' remuneration.

As the Complainant is no longer employed by the Respondent, it would be impractical to direct compliance with the Act. In the alternative, I award the Complainant €1,000 for the Respondent’s breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 during the cognisable period, which I consider to be just and equitable in the circumstances.

CA-00074714-003 – Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, as amended, requires an employer to provide an employee with specified core terms of employment in writing within five days of the commencement of employment and to furnish a more comprehensive written statement of terms and conditions of employment within one month of commencement. These obligations are designed to ensure that employees are informed in writing of the essential terms governing their employment from the outset of the employment relationship.

Where an employer fails to comply with these obligations, an employee may bring a complaint under section 7 of the Act. If such a complaint is found to be well founded, an adjudication officer may direct the employer to provide or correct the required statement of terms and may award compensation that is just and equitable in all the circumstances. The statutory basis for such an award is section 7(2)(d) of the Act, which provides for compensation of up to four weeks' remuneration.

I note that the Respondent's obligation to furnish the Complainant with the written particulars required by the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 arose shortly after the commencement of the employment. However, where no statement of terms is ever furnished, the failure to provide same constitutes a continuing contravention. In circumstances where the Complainant maintains that she was never provided with a written statement of terms and conditions of employment and remained employed until shortly before the presentation of the complaint on 22 August 2025, I am satisfied that the complaint was presented within the statutory time limit.

The Complainant’s evidence on this complaint is uncontested and unchallenged. I therefore find that the Respondent is in breach of the Act as a result of failing to provide the Complainant with a written statement of her terms of employment. I find that €1,000 is just and equitable compensation in the circumstances.

I find that the complaints under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 are well founded. I award compensation in the amount of €2,000 to the Complainant in respect of those two complaints.

I further find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and award net compensation in the amount of €€2,352 for her unfair dismissal.

Unfair Dismissal – failure to provide terms in writing – failure to provide breaks