Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ronan  Breslin

Solis Mmc Childrens Services

Representatives

Complainant

Donnacha Anhold Carter Anhold & Co., Solicitors

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-00071843-001

23/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00071843-002

23/05/2025

The complainant, Mr Breslin, worked for the respondent for a period of 2.5 months.  He alleges that he was not given a copy of his terms of employment and that he was not notified in writing of changes to his terms of employment.

Evidence was given under oath/affirmation by Mr Breslin and subject to cross examination.

All documentation received by me was considered in reaching my decision.

The complainant was not given a copy of his terms of employment in accordance with the Act.

The complainant was not notified in writing of a change to his terms of employment . The advertised role that he applied for and was successful for was 'Office Manager'. Upon completing his first day the Director told him that the role he applied for was not the role he would be doing. He told him that he was hired for Governance & Compliance, a role which the complainant had not applied for, nor, was mentioned in the Job Description / Specification. 

Preliminary Matter

It is noted that the employee's employment ended on the 19th of September 2024 and furthermore the claims were not submitted until the 23rd of May 2025. In the first instance the legislative requirements to file a complaint to the WRC within 6 months of that issue of complaint haven arisen, have not been complied with. All the complaints filed by the employee are out of time and it is the submission of the employer that the complains should be not be adjudicated upon on the basis that they were not filed with the WRC on time.

Complaints under Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Claimant submits that he did not receive Terms and Conditions of Employment or Contract of Employment.  The employer cannot confirm that these were provided to the employee properly and cannot confirm compliance with the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, and therefore accepts that the matter in respect of the complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 can be conceded.

Preliminary Matter

The respondent has argued that the complaints under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 are out of time insofar as the complainant finished his employment with the respondent on 19/09/2024 and did not submit his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission until 23/05/2025 some 8 months later.

Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (as amended) states

7.—(1) An employee shall not be entitled to present a complaint under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in respect of a contravention of section 3, 4, 5 or 6…

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 states;

(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

The default position is therefore that complaints must be received within 6 months unless the complainant can demonstrate reasonable cause why this period can be extended to 12 months.

The seminal precedent relating to the test to be applied by an adjudicator in determining whether to extend the period to 12 months was set out in Labour Court Determination DWT0338 Cementation Skanska (Formerly Kvaerner Cementation) v Carroll in the following terms: -

“It is the Court's view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time.

The length of the delay should be taken into account. A short delay may require only a slight explanation whereas a long delay may require more cogent reasons. Where reasonable cause is shown the Court must still consider if it is appropriate in the circumstances to exercise its discretion in favour of granting an extension of time. Here the Court should consider if the respondent has suffered prejudice by the delay and should also consider if the claimant has a good arguable case.

The complainant in his evidence stated that his grandmother, who had been his primary carer, became terminally ill around the time of his departure from his employment and subsequently passed away in November 2024.  As a result, he was not in the right frame of mind to proceed to take a case.  Secondly, he had to deal with the financial hardship caused by ending his employment with the respondent in order to continue to pay his mortgage.

The guidance in the Skanska case includes Here the Court should consider if the respondent has suffered prejudice by the delay and should also consider if the claimant has a good arguable case.

I am satisfied that the respondent has not suffered prejudice by the delay and, as the respondent conceded at the hearing the breach of the Act insofar as the complainant was not given a copy of his Terms of Employment, I am satisfied that the complainant has a ‘good arguable case’.

In the circumstances I believe a reasonable cause existed and I have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Substantive issues.

The complainant has argued that he was not given a copy of his terms of employment in accordance with the Act which is conceded by the respondent. The complaint is therefore well-founded.

The complainant also alleges that he was not notified in writing of a change to his terms of employment. The advertised role that he applied for and was successful for was 'Office Manager'. Upon completing his first day the Director told him that the role he applied for was not the role he would be doing. He told him that he was hired for Governance & Compliance, a role which the complainant had not applied for, nor was mentioned in the Job Description / Specification.  The respondent was unable to attend the hearing in person and it was argued by his representative that Governance and Compliance should be seen as part of or possibly in addition to the role of Office Manager.

No evidence was given by the respondent to refute the complainant’s allegation and therefore I conclude that the complaint is well-founded.

CA-00071843-001  The complaint is well-founded and I order the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €500 in compensation.

CA-00071843-002  The complaint is well-founded and I order the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €1,000 in compensation

Terms and conditions not given.  Change to terms and conditions.  Extension of time due to reasonable cause