Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Oleh Bozhenko

Clos Adhamid Dhónal Teoranta

Representatives

Self-represented

A Director

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-00073533-001

17/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991

CA-00073533-002

09/11/2025

The complainant was employed by the respondent from March 2024 until his resignation from employment on or around 29 January 2025.

The complaint referred to the Commission on 17 July 2025 was that the complainant was not provided with a statement in writing of terms of employment in accordance with the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

In a written submission received 9 November 2025, the complainant raised an additional complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 of a unilateral alteration of his scheduled workdays and non-payment of wages for a week in December 2024 and for his final period of work in January 2025.  The complainant submits that he discovered these discrepancies when reviewing his bank statements.

The complainant was employed by the respondent until 29 January 2025, working two days per week and averaging 15 hours of work weekly. His weekly pay was initially €189.55, increasing to €201.48 in January 2025.

At no stage was the complainant provided with a written contract or a statement of terms of employment. This omission created both practical and legal difficulties, including uncertainty regarding hours of work, notice periods, and unilateral changes to his agreed working days.

Following a lawful request for compensation, the complainant experienced psychological distress and intimidation. 

The complainant seeks compensation, payment of outstanding wages, a direction concerning the provision of an employment reference and other directions/instructions.

The respondent is a small business which, at the time of the complainant’s employment, engaged the complainant and one other operative.

The respondent accepts that it did not provide the complainant with a written statement of terms of employment. The parties had agreed the key terms of employment by text message in advance of the complainant commencing employment.

When the complainant raised an issue regarding unpaid accrued annual leave on termination of employment, the respondent paid the amount claimed.

The respondent attempted to address and resolve this complaint regarding the written statement with the complainant. The complainant initially sought €1,200 in settlement of the complaint.  When the complainant subsequently increased the amount sought, the respondent declined to engage with the complainant further.

CA-00073533-001

The material facts in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 3 of the 1994 Act are not in dispute.

The respondent did not meet its obligations to the complainant under section 3 by providing the complainant with a statement in writing containing certain particulars of the terms of his employment. 

I have considered the protection against penalisation provisions in section 6C of the 1994 Act having regard to the complaint specific detail and the information provided by the complainant at the hearing.  

I am not satisfied that the respondent’s WhatsApp communications constituted threats in response to the complainant indicating an intention to file a complaint with the Commission. I have carefully considered the preceding communications from the complainant together with the respondent’s responses and am not satisfied that the respondent penalised or threatened penalisation of the complainant for undertaking a protected act within the meaning of section 6C(1) of the 1994 Act.  The evidence is that the respondent paid the complainant for accrued annual leave following the complainant raising an issue in this regard after his employment terminated and requesting payment for same. The following day, the complainant sought €1,200 in compensation in settlement of a breach of the 1994 Act, provided payment details, and indicated that he would proceed to the WRC if payment was not made. There followed further communications between the parties.  On balance, I find that the communications complained of were in response to the complainant’s requests for compensation and not in response to or as a reaction to a protected act. I therefore find no contravention of section 6C of the 1994 Act.

At the time the complainant’s employment with the respondent terminated, the complainant’s gross weekly remuneration was €202.50.

In accordance with section 7 of the 1994 Act, I find the complaint of a contravention of section 3 of the 1994 Act to be well founded, and I consider it just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances to order the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €607.50.

For completeness, I do not have jurisdiction in adjudicating on this complaint to make directions or instructions of the type sought by the complainant as additional reliefs and requests.

CA-00073533-002

A complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the “1991 Act”) was referred to the Commission on 9 November 2025. The complainant referred to an unauthorised schedule change, non‑payment of wages for the complainant’s final week of work in January 2025 and an underpayment for a week in December 2024.  At the hearing, I outlined the statutory time limits in section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 which apply to a complaint under the 1991 Act.  The complainant advised that he wished to focus on the complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (the “1994 Act”).

As the complaint under the 1991 Act was not referred within six months of the date of alleged contravention to which the complaint relates, and I am not satisfied that the late discovery of discrepancies through reviewing bank statements constitutes reasonable cause or of any other reasonable cause, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the 1991 Act.

I therefore find this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00073533-001

For the reasons set out above, I find the complaint of a contravention of section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 is well founded and order the respondent to pay compensation to the complainant of €607.50.

I further find that there was no contravention of section 6C of the 1994 Act, and a complaint in this regard is not well founded.

CA-00073533-002

For the reasons set out above, I find the complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is not well founded.

Written statement of particulars – Penalisation contrary to section 6(C) of 1994 Act - Out of time additional complaint in relation to wages