ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00059426
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Darren O’ Brien | Crown Hair & Beauty Ltd |
Representatives | None | Mr Tim Kiely, Solicitor |
Complaints:
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-00072147-002 | 05/06/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00072147-003 | 05/06/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
Procedure:
In accordance with s. 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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaints.
The hearing was held in public at the Hearing Rooms of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in Carlow on 10th March 2026. The parties were advised that in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, employment rights and equality hearings before the WRC are held in public and that the decision would not be anonymised unless there were special circumstances for doing so. There was no application to have the matter heard in private or to have the decision anonymised.
The Complainant was not represented but was accompanied by a friend for support. In attendance for the Respondent was Mr Tim Kiely, Solicitor; Ms Catherine Dalton, owner of the Respondent business; Ms Ashling Morris, Manager; and Mr Denis Dalton, owner of the respondent business. All persons who gave evidence were sworn in.
In coming to my decision, I have taken account of the relevant evidence before me provided by way of oral testimony and written submissions.
Background:
The Complainant contends he did not receive written terms of employment. The Respondent contends the Complainant was given written terms of employment on 26th March 2025. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Oral Evidence of the Complainant (under affirmation)
CA-00072147-002
The Complainant commenced employment on 25th March 2025 as a junior stylist. He was paid €432 per week. He was dismissed on 5th June 2025. During the interview for the role Ms Morris outlined the weekly working hours and rate of pay. The Complainant contends that he was not provided with a statement of core terms within five days of commencement of employment, and that he did not receive a contract of employment within one month of the commencement of his employment.
In cross-examination the Complainant denied that he was brought into a room on 26th March 2025 and taken through a written contact of employment. He outlined that as a junior stylist his role involved cleaning, and if the written contract had been left in the room, he would have come across it while cleaning.
CA-00072147-003
The Complainant outlined at the hearing that this complaint is a duplicate of complaint CA-00072147-002. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Oral Evidence of Ms Ashling Morris (under affirmation)
Ms Morris outlined that on 26th March 2025, which was the second day of the Complainant’s employment, she met with the Complainant and brought him through the main provisions of his written contract of employment and the expectations required of him, as was normal for all new starters. He was advised of a probationary period, although the contract of employment was silent with respect to probation. The Complainant was also advised there was a handbook at reception if he wished to refer to it at any time. The contract of employment was left with the Complainant for him to sign and return to her. A second copy of the contract was retained by Ms Morris at reception. The copy of the contract given to the Complainant was subsequently found on a shelf, in a folder, in the room where the meeting had taken place whilst the room was being cleaned. Ms Morris acknowledged that she did not check whether the statement was returned to her. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Relevant Law
The Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (as amended) (“the Act) at s. 3(1) requires, not later than one month after the commencement of an employee’s employment, the employer to give or cause to be given to an employee a statement in writing containing specified particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment. Section 3(1A) provides, without prejudice to ss. (1), that an employer must, 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 specified particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment. A statement furnished by an employer to an employee under s. 3 must be in writing and be signed and dated by or on behalf of the employer.
A decision of an Adjudication Officer under s. 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of s.3 must do one or more of the following:
“(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded . . . (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. . . . ”
Findings
CA-00072147-002
As noted above, s. 3 of the Act requires employers to give or cause to be given to an employee a written statement of terms of employment detailing core terms within 5 days of starting their employment, with the remaining terms required to be given to the employee within one month. It is the Complainant’s case that he did not receive the statement required to be given under s. 3(1A) of the Act or the statement required to be given under s. 3(1) of the Act. This is refuted by the Respondent. It is the Respondent’s case that it complied with both s. 3(1) and s. 3(1A) of the Act as the Complainant was given a copy of his full terms of employment in writing on the second day of his employment. Ms Morris gave evidence that she had a meeting with the Complainant and took him through the main terms of the statement, and that the Complainant must have left the document behind him in the room. The Complainant contends this meeting never happened and at no time was he provided with written terms of employment as required under s. 3 of the Act.
A copy of the statement of terms of employment was opened to the hearing. This statement was stamped but was not signed by or on behalf of the Respondent or dated as required under the Act. The Employer could not explain why the statement was not signed or dated. I prefer the evidence of the Complainant that he was not given a copy of the statement on 26th March 2025 or at any time prior to the termination of his employment. Therefore, I find the Respondent contravened s. 3 of the Act, and accordingly, I find the complaint is well-founded.
CA-00072147-003
The Complainant outlined at the hearing that this complaint is a duplicate of complaint CA-00072147-002. Accordingly, as I have already made a finding under CA-00072147-002, I find this complaint is not-well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 requires I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00072147-002
I decide the Respondent contravened s. 3 of the Terms and Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (as amended) and accordingly, I decide this complaint is well-founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €864 which I consider to be just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.
CA-00072147-003
The Complainant outlined at the hearing that this complaint is a duplicate of complaint CA-00072147-002. Accordingly, as I have already made a decision under CA-00072147-002, I decide this complaint is not-well founded. |
Dated: 12-03-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
Key Words:
Statement of terms of employment. |