Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Georgiana  Tudor

Samedhy Ltd t/a Cedars Beauty Clinic

Representatives

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-00076951-001

30/10/2025

This complaint was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. The complaint concerns an alleged failure by the Respondent to provide the Complainant with a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as an Assistant Manager from 1 August 2021 until 30 October 2025.

The Complainant stated that she never received a written contract of employment or a written statement setting out the terms and conditions governing her employment.

She stated that she worked approximately 25 hours per week throughout most of her employment. However, in the final weeks of her employment her hours were reduced, first to 18 hours per week and then to 10 hours per week. She contended that the reduction in hours ultimately resulted in her resignation because it was no longer economically viable for her to travel approximately 42 kilometres to work for such a limited number of hours.

The Complainant further stated that the absence of a written contract left her without any document to which she could refer when changes were made to her employment. She maintained that, had she been furnished with a contract setting out her terms and conditions, the changes that she was required to endure may not have been implemented or could have been challenged by reference to agreed contractual provisions. She argued that she was disadvantaged by not having any written record of her employment terms.

The Complainant also referred to other workplace concerns. However, the complaint before me relates solely to the alleged failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment.

The Respondent did not dispute the Complainant's evidence regarding the absence of written particulars and candidly acknowledged that no contract had been issued during the Complainant's employment due to an administrative oversight.

Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 imposes a mandatory obligation on employers to provide employees with a written statement containing specified particulars of their employment.

It was not disputed that the Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 1 August 2021 until 30 October 2025. It was also undisputed that throughout that period the Complainant was not provided with a written contract of employment or with the statutory written statement required by the Act.

I find the Respondent's admission determinative of the complaint. The Respondent was under a statutory obligation to provide the Complainant with written particulars of her employment and failed to do so.

I find that the complaint is well founded for the reasons set out above.

The contravention in this case was neither minor nor of short duration. The Complainant was employed by the Respondent for in excess of four years without being furnished with the written statement of terms and conditions required by statute. I am satisfied that this amounted to a significant and sustained breach of the Respondent's obligations under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

In determining the appropriate level of redress, I have had regard to the length of time over which the breach persisted, the complete failure to comply with the statutory requirements, and the uncertainty experienced by the Complainant arising from the absence of written terms governing her employment. I accept the Complainant's submission that the lack of a written statement left her without a document to which she could refer when changes were made to her working arrangements.

Section 7(2)(d) directs me to assess compensation of such amount as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. While I do not treat the Respondent's admission as diminishing the seriousness of the default assessed above, the admission is, however, a separate circumstance properly falling for consideration under section 7(2)(d): the Respondent did not dispute liability but accepted candidly and without qualification that no statement had been provided. I attach modest weight to that circumstance in fixing the award at three, rather than four, weeks' remuneration.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation equivalent to three weeks' remuneration, namely €1,502.54 (€2,170.33*12/52*3), calculated in accordance with the Unfair Dismissals (Calculation of Weekly Remuneration) Regulations 1977, which reflects her rate of pay prior to the reduction in her hours in the final weeks of employment, given that the Regulations look to normal/average earnings rather than a reduced final-weeks rate.