TED2623

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00047804 (CA-00058210-003)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 05/06/2024 in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2012. 

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21/01/2026. 

The following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal on behalf of Ocean Palace Chinese Takeaway Limited (‘the Respondent’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00047804/CA-00058210-003, dated 30 April 2024) under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 5 June 2024. A case management conference was convened on 18 July 2025. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 21 January 2026.

Factual Background

Ms Zoe Murphy (‘the Complainant’) worked as a part-time member of counter staff at the Chinese takeaway premises operated by the Respondent in Navan, Co Meath, from April 2021 until she resigned her employment on 6 August 2023. As of the date of her resignation she was paid a flat rate of €85.00 in cash per shift worked.

There was a conflict of evidence between the Parties in relation to the number of shifts per week the Complainant worked. On her account, she worked 5 shifts in each fortnight, two the first week and three the second week. The Respondent submitted that she always worked a maximum of two shifts per week.

The Respondent’s written submission to the Court included copy payslips. However, it is clear to the Court that these were not issued contemporaneously to the Complainant and do not tally with either Party’s submission in relation to the number of hours worked by the Complainant.

The Claim

The Complainant told the Court that she had never been provided with a written statement setting out her terms and conditions of employment. Mr Lin Chen, the proprietor of the Respondent, accepted that this was the case and told the Court that he had communicated the Complainant’s terms to her verbally only.

Discussion and Decision

Mr Lin Chen’s admission that he had only communicated the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment to her verbally means that the Court must uphold the claim and reject the Respondent’s appeal.

The Court awards the Complainant compensation of four weeks’ pay for the Respondent’s failure to comply with the Act. The calculation of the compensation is premised on an hourly rate of €11.70 (not disputed by the Respondent) and an average working week of 15 hours (i.e. one seven-hour and one eight-hour shift per week). The Court calculates the compensation at €702.00.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
AL	______________________
23 January 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.