Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ivana  Zima

Mark Daunt ltd

(amended on consent at hearing)

Representatives

Appeared In Person

Proprietor

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-00076296-009

13/10/2025

On 13 October 2025, Ms. Zima, the complainant in this case, submitted a complaint that she had not received a statement in writing regarding her terms of employment.

On 4 November 2025, the WRC notified the Respondent of the complaint.

Both parties were invited to hearing scheduled for June 8, 2026, in Cork.

On May 22, 2026, I wrote to both parties seeking a written submission and any relevant documentation e.g., pay slips.

I received redacted Bank records from the complainant in response accompanied by random what’s app exchanges.

The Respondent responded by outlined submission taken aback by the claim which he denied had been discussed within the workplace.

Both Ms. Zima and Mr. Daunt took the oath to accompany their evidence at hearing.

During the hearing, the complainant submitted that the impact of the contravention had directly affected her reportage of tax obligations for earnings in her native Croatia and by association, Austria.

Given the dispute in the evidence, I requested that she provide some documentary insight into these obligations.

The Complainant followed through with some documents, but I could not establish a clear demarcation of these obligations.

The Respondent was copied on the documents but did not make a response.

The Complainant commenced work with the Respondent, first as kitchen staff and secondly at an adjacent food truck from 15 April 2025 to 15 July 2025. She exhibited a bank statement with some redactions from 21 April to 18 July 2025 which captured a variety of payments made by the Respondent to her.

In her written submission, the Complainant outlined her case.

It was the Complainants case that she was denied a Statement of her Terms of Employment, and this has placed her in an unenviable position within her Croatian tax obligations and has hampered her also with the Austrian seasonal tax system.

The Complainant maintained that she had asked verbally and through what’s app for this statement of terms. She had also raised the pay slips issue with WRC Inspectorate.

Evidence:

The Complainant submitted hat she was a Croatian national who came to work in the hotel kitchen and latterly in the food truck for a three-month period April to July 2025.

She enjoyed her job but was troubled by the administrative gap of no pay slips or contract of employment. She described her obligation to file tax returns to the Croatian Tax office. The absence of a contract had placed her in a difficult place with the tax authorities, and she now faced penalties and narrow deadlines. She had also been unable to secure tax rebate.

The Complainant gave sworn evidence that she had pursued access to the official employment documents from the respondent and had not secured them.

The Complainant drew the attention of the hearing to her what’s app of 23 June 2025 where she sought to discuss her hours and “some little details “.

She sought travel expenses as she had travelled back to Ireland for this case.

The Respondent operates a seasonal hospitality business.

By way of written submission, Mr Daunt outlined:

He advertised for a support worker to anchor the business into the seasonal opening on the web site Workaway. It was anticipated to be of 6 weeks duration and was introduced as a paid position.

He needed someone to help him at the business prior to the arrival of summer staff. He was pleased to hire the complainant as she had an existing pps number. He paid €15.00 nett of deductions and provided with free accommodation while the complainant worked at the hotel. She move4d to the food truck at the end of May as the Summer chefs had  arrived at the business.

The Respondent submitted some detail on Workaway and described it as a Cultural exchange for learning new skills.

The Respondent maintained that the complainant had not raised any issues during her employment.

He exhibited the complainants submitted record of hours.

In sworn evidence, Mr Daunt accepted that he had not issued a Statement of Terms of Employment within the statutory period.

He qualified this by stating that he did not know there was a problem until he was served with the WRC complaint.

He submitted that he was available to resolve the matter in the workplace but was never asked.

He outlined that he was busy preparing the business for the summer season.

He also added that he was prepared to resolve the matter at hearing.

During cross examination, he told Ms Zima that the statement of terms had slipped his mind.

He reaffirmed that the complainant had been supported during her employment which covered the kitchen and food truck.

I have been asked to arrive at a Decision in this case on whether the Complainant received a Statement of Terms of Employment within the statutory period set down in Section 3 of the Act.?

In reaching my decision, I have considered both parties submissions. I have listened to and considered the oral evidence adduced at hearing. I have read the complainants’ post hearing clarification on Croatian tax obligations.

The Written Statement Directive ,Council Directive 91/533/EEC was repealed by Directive EU 2019 /1152 , which was transposed into Irish Law in European Union (Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions) Regulations 2022 (SI 686/2022), 16 December , 2022 which amended the instant Act , Terms of Employment (Information )Act , 1994 .

This sets out the European wide emphasis on maximum information to be provided to workers from day 1 of employment.

Firstly, I need to set out my jurisdiction in the case. This is drawn from Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

Written statement of terms of employment.

3.— (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 containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment,

And

Section 3(1)(a)

(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 containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment, that is to say:

(a) the full names of the employer and the employee;

(b) the address of the employer in the State or, where appropriate, the address of the principal place of the relevant business of the employer in the State or the registered office (within the meaning of the Companies Act 2014);

(c) in the case of a temporary contract of employment, the expected duration thereof or, if the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the date on which the contract expires;

(d) the remuneration, including the initial basic amount, any other component elements, if applicable, indicated separately, the frequency and method of payment of the remuneration to which the employee is entitled and the pay reference period for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000;

(e) the number of hours which the employer reasonably expects the employee to work—

(i) per normal working day, and

(ii) per normal working week;

Section 7 provides for a remedy in this case

(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, 4, 5, 6, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F or 6G, 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,

(b) either—

(i) confirm all or any of the particulars contained or referred to in any statement furnished by the employer under section 3, 4, 5, 6, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F or 6G, or

(ii) alter or add to any such statement for the purpose of correcting any inaccuracy or omission in the statement and the statement as so altered or added to shall be deemed to have been given to the employee by the employer,

(c) require the employer to give or cause to be given to the employee concerned a written statement containing such particulars as may be specified by the adjudication officer,

(d) in relation to a complaint of a contravention under change section 3, 4, 5, 6, 6D, 6E, 6F, or 6G,  and without prejudice to any order made under paragraph (e) 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.]

The obligation is on the Respondent to provide the 5-day statement and the more comprehensive statement of terms within one month of employment. It is meant to be in writing, signed and dated by the employer.

I am satisfied that this did not occur.

I understand that the employment came about through a cultural exchange programme, Workaway, which carried the following maxim in the pre-employment documentation exhibited by the respondent.

“It is important you communicate as much as possible before hand with your hosts so that you both know each other’s expectations “

Given that the PPS number was exchanged pre-employment, I would have expected a statement of terms would have followed.

I observed a conflict in the evidence on whether any discussions occurred on this topic during the employment. I have resolved this conflict in favour of the respondent as I could not establish just when the complainant sought to discuss this issue.

I accept the Respondent evidence that it slipped his mind. However, this omission has placed the complainant in an unenviable tax dilemma within Europe.

The parties will both note that had the statement issued on time, within either the 5 days or one month of commencement, perhaps the complainant would have been saved this dilemma.

I had some concern at the delay before the complainant referred this matter to the WRC. It was not prefaced by any visible attempt to resolve the matter informally.

At any rate, the claim is well founded as the obligation on the respondent is a strict one. I have established a contravention of Section 3 of the Act.

In exercising my scope to award a remedy in this case, I must have regard for a just and equitable remedy.

I have found the genesis of employment through Workaway to be very casual and not prescriptive of the employment legislation of Ireland.

I would have preferred to see this matter discussed pre-employment as provided for in Workaway documentation. The Complainant possessed an Irish PPS number and had worked in Ireland previously.

The claim is well founded.

In accordance with my powers under Section 7 of the Act, I order the Respondent to issue a statement of terms reflective of the period of employment and in adherence to the provisions of Section 3 and Section 3(1) (a) of the Act.

15 April 2025 to 15 July 2025

Earnings Nett €15.00.

This should assist the complainant to resolve her bi lateral tax problems in Croatia and Austria.

In response to the Complainants application for travel expenses. I have no jurisdiction under this law to make such an award.

Instead, in accordance with Section 7(2) of the Act, I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €500.00 in compensation in respect of the contravention of Section 3 of the Act.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 requires that I make a decision in relation to this complaint in accordance with Section 3 of that Act.

I have found the claim to be well founded.

In accordance with Section 7(2) of the Act, I order the Respondent to issue a Statement of Terms reflective of the period of employment and in adherence to the provisions of Section 3 and Section 3(1) (a) of the Act within two weeks of this Decision issuing.

15 April 2025 to 15 July 2025

Earnings Nett €15.00.

 I also order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €500.00 in compensation in respect of the contravention of Section 3 of the Act.

Terms of Employment / EU tax reportage obligations.