ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062753
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Alina Cristina Moisiuc | Catering Crew Ltd - Hospitality Recruitment |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Nonattendance |
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-00075856-004 | 30/09/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00075856-006 | 30/09/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00075856-007 | 30/09/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/07/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired 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.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant attended the hearing and undertook to give her evidence under affirmation. The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter. I am satisfied that the appropriate notification was sent to the correct official address of the respondent. The hearing commenced after a short pause to enable the respondent to attend, the respondent did not attend and no communication was received from them. Accordingly the hearing proceeded in the absence of the respondent. At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided. I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a “…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00075856-004 Terms of Employment The complainant stated that she did not receive a written statement of the terms and conditions of her employment. CA-00075856-006 Minimum Notice The complainant stated that she did not receive notice in respect of the termination of her employment. CA-00075856-007 Fixed Term Work The complainant stated that she, as a fixed term worker was treated differently to permanent employees when her hours were unilaterally reduced. However, In clarification she also confirmed that everybody’s hours were cut “across the board”. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter |
Findings and Conclusions:
I found the complainant credible as a witness in that she answered questions in a straightforward manner and provided clarification, even when such clarification was not necessarily in her interest. CA-00075856-004 Terms of Employment The complainant stated that she did not receive a written statement of the terms and conditions of her employment. This was not disputed by the respondent who did not attend the hearing of the matter. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the complaint is well founded and that the Act was contravened. I order the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €570 which I consider to be just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. CA-00075856-006 Minimum Notice The complainant stated that she did not receive notice in respect of the termination of her employment. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the Act was contravened. I order the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €570 which I consider to be just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. CA-00075856-007 Fixed Term Work The complainant stated that she, as a fixed term worker was treated differently to permanent employees when her hours were unilaterally reduced. However, In clarification she also confirmed that everybody’s hours were cut “across the board”. Therefore, I find that the Act was not contravened. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00075856-004 Terms of Employment Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act was contravened. I order the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €570 which I consider to be just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. CA-00075856-006 Minimum Notice Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act was contravened. I order the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €570 which I consider to be just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. CA-00075856-007 Fixed Term Work Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act was not contravened. |
Dated: 23rd of July 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Terms of Employment Information – complaint well founded – award of compensation – Minimum notice - complaint well founded – award of compensation – Fixed Term Work – complaint not well founded. |