Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Keith  McCann

GDP Transport Ltd

Representatives

None

None

Act

Complaint 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-00073485-001

16/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00073485-004

16/07/2025

The Complainant submits he was dismissed without notice, and that he did not receive a 5-day statement or a complete contract of employment within one month. 

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 10th February 2025.  He contends he was dismissed on 30th June 2025 without notice.  At the time of his dismissal, he was earning €556 net per week.  The Complainant submits that he did not receive a 5-day statement or a complete contract of employment within one month. 

Mr Rochford outlined that he did not think the Complainant was entitled to notice as he thought the Complainant had less than 12- or 13-weeks service as the Complainant had a period of sick leave.  He acknowledged to the hearing that the period of sick leave may not have broken the Complainant’s service.  Mr Rochford stated that it is the practice of the Respondent to give a contract of employment within 4 days, but he could not remember the Complainant requesting a contract and he acknowledged the Complainant may not have received a contract.

CA-00073485-001 – Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (“the 1994 Act”)

Relevant Law

Section 3 of the 1994 Act provides:

“(1) An employer shall, not later than one month after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing . . .  

(1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1), an employer shall, 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 . . . . ”

Section 7(2) of the 1994 Act provides:

(2) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 3 . . . shall do one or more of the following, namely—

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

(d) in relation to a complaint of a contravention under section 3 . . .   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

It was common case the Complainant did not receive the statements he was entitled to receive in accordance with the provisions of s. 3(1) and s. 3(1A) of the 1994 Act.  Therefore, I am satisfied the Respondent has contravened s. 3 of the 1994 Act.  Accordingly, I order the employer to pay to the Complainant compensation of €1,112 which I consider just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA-00073485-004  - Complaint under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 (“the 1973 Act”)

Section 4 of the 1973 Act provides:

“(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be—

(a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week . . .

(3) The provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall apply for the purposes of ascertaining the period of service of an employee and whether that service has been continuous . . . .” (Emphasis added).

Section 12(1) of the 1973 Act provides:

“A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4(2) or 5 may, where the adjudication officer finds that that section was contravened by the employer in relation to the employee who presented the complaint, include a direction that the employer concerned pay to the employee compensation for any loss sustained by the employee by reason of the contravention.”

The First Schedule of the 1973 Act provides in relation to computation of continuous service:

“1. The service of an employee in his employment shall be deemed to be continuous unless that service is terminated by—

(a) the dismissal of the employee by his employer, or

(b) the employee voluntarily leaving his employment.”

Findings

The Respondent submitted that he did not think the Complainant was entitled to notice as he was of the view that the Complainant’s service may have been broken by a period of sick leave.

I am satisfied the Complainant was in the continuous service of the Respondent for a period of thirteen weeks or more (20 weeks).  I am satisfied that as the Complainant was not dismissed nor did he resign at any time prior to 30th June 2025, he is entitled to one week of notice in accordance with s. 4 (2)(a) of the 1994 arising from his dismissal on 30th June 2025.  Accordingly, I find the Respondent contravened s. 4(2) of the 1994 Act, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant net compensation of €556 being the loss sustained by the Complainant by reason of that contravention.

CA-00073485-001

I decide this complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (as amended) is well-founded and I order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €1,112 which I consider just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.  This is redress of compensation for a breach of a statutory right and is not remuneration or arrears of remuneration.

CA-00073485-004 

I decide this complaint under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 (as amended) is well-founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant net compensation of €556 being the loss sustained by the Complainant by reason of that contravention.

No statement of terms of employment given.  No notice on termination given.