ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060622

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Imrich Ferko	Beyond Reach Limited trading as Car Wash Crew

Representatives

Self-Represented

Graeme Burke, Managing Director

Complaint:

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-00073764-001	25/07/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/01/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan

Procedure:

In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

At the adjudication hearing I advised that in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and that decisions are not anonymised unless there are special circumstances for doing so. There was no application to have the matter heard in private or to anonymise the decision.

The parties are named in the heading of the Decision. For ease of reference I will hereinafter refer to Imrich Ferko as “the Complainant” and Beyond Reach Limited trading as Car Wash Crew as “the Respondent”. The Complainant attended the hearing as a litigant in person. The Respondent’s Managing Director and an employee attended the hearing to give evidence on behalf of the Respondent.

I advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation. All evidence was given under oath or affirmation.

The parties were afforded the opportunity to test the oral evidence presented by way of cross-examination.

Where necessary, I made such inquiries as were required to clarify aspects of the evidence in fulfilment of my statutory function.

The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder, followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation in advance of the hearing. In reaching my decision, I have taken into account all relevant evidence and supporting documentation presented by both parties.

Background:

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 4 July 2024. His employment ended following his resignation on 25 July 2025. On the same date, he referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1994 Act”).

The complaint alleged that the Complainant did not receive written terms of employment at the commencement of his employment and that he was only provided with a written contract on 4 July 2025, approximately one year after he began working for the Respondent.

The Respondent denied the complaint and maintained that the Complainant was provided with written terms and conditions of employment within days of commencing employment as part of the induction process but did not sign or return the document.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant gave evidence that he did not receive a contract of employment when he commenced work with the Respondent.

The Complainant relied on the contents of the WRC complaint form wherein it was stated that he only received a written contract on 4 July 2025, approximately one year after commencing employment.

During the hearing, the Complainant accepted that the complaint form submitted to the WRC had been prepared by his sister on his behalf and that the narrative contained within the form had been generated using artificial intelligence. He stated that he was not fully familiar with all aspects of the contents submitted in his name and was not in a position to clearly articulate the precise legal nature of the complaint.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant commenced employment on 4 July 2024 and was provided with a physical copy of his contract of employment shortly thereafter during the induction process by representatives of the Respondent. The Respondent stated that it was standard practice to provide contracts to all new employees at induction.

The Complainant was requested to review the contract and return a signed copy. The Respondent stated that the signed contract was not returned by the Complainant. It was accepted on behalf of the Respondent that no follow-up was undertaken at the time to obtain the signed document.

The Respondent maintained that the written contract had nonetheless been provided to the Complainant at the commencement of his employment and that the statutory obligation under the 1994 Act had therefore been complied with. The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant did not raise any issue concerning the contract during the course of his employment.

Findings and Conclusions:

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted by the parties, the oral evidence adduced at the hearing as summarised above, the oral and written submissions made by and on behalf of the parties at the hearing.

The issue for determination is whether the Respondent failed to provide the Complainant with the written statement of terms of employment required under section 3 of the 1994 Act.

This matter turned on conflicting oral evidence.

Having carefully considered the totality of the evidence, I prefer the evidence of the Respondent.

The Respondent’s evidence regarding its induction procedures and the provision of written contracts to new employees was clear, consistent and credible. The account provided was coherent and aligned with ordinary employment practices.

By contrast, the Complainant accepted that the complaint submitted to the WRC had been prepared by his sister and generated using artificial intelligence, and that he had not fully reviewed or verified the contents prior to submission. As a consequence, he was unable to clearly explain aspects of the complaint advanced in his own name. While assistance in preparing complaints is not improper, a complainant remains responsible for the accuracy of allegations made on his behalf. In the circumstances, this materially reduced the weight that could be attached to the Complainant’s evidence.

I accept the Respondent’s evidence that the Complainant was provided with a written contract within days of commencing employment but did not sign or return it. The statutory obligation under the 1994 Act concerns the provision of written terms of employment to an employee and does not depend upon the employee signing the document.

On the balance of probabilities, I find that the Respondent complied with its obligations under the 1994 Act. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

Decision:

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.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

Dated: 02/03/26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan

Key Words: