Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Paddy  Daly

Cavan Couriers T/A Edward Carolan

Representatives

Ruairi Guckian GHR Consulting

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-00073281-001

09/07/2025

Although he commenced employment with the Respondent on 18 September 2021, the Complainant stated that he did not receive a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment until June 2025. He stated that this delay in furnishing him with the document constituted a breach of the Act.

The Complainant asserted that throughout the majority of his employment with the Respondent, he was not provided with a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment, as required by legislation.

In June 2025, following the disciplinary process that resulted in a final written warning, the Complainant formally requested a signed contract of employment together with copies of his payslips from the commencement of his employment. In response to this request, he received a contract of employment by email. The Complainant stated that he had never previously seen this contract and that it had not been discussed or agreed with him at the time of its alleged commencement.

The Complainant also received copies of certain payslips at that time, which he stated he had never previously been provided with. He maintained that the belated provision of these documents did not remedy the Respondent’s failure to comply with the statutory obligation to provide a written statement of terms within the required timeframe.

In June 2025, the Complainant requested a signed contract of employment and copies of his payslips from the commencement of his employment. He subsequently received a contract by email.

The Respondent outlined that they were a small business that began as a one‑man courier operation and grew gradually over time to employ several drivers. The Respondent stated that there was limited experience or knowledge within the business regarding employment law and administrative requirements as the business expanded, and that operational demands frequently outpaced available administrative resources.

The Respondent stated that payslips were available for all employees and that, following the Complainant’s request, he had already received payslips covering more than 52 weeks up to the commencement of his sickness absence. The Respondent stated that the remainder of the payslips requested were in the process of being prepared.

The Respondent requested that consideration be given to the small‑scale and family‑run nature of the enterprise, the lack of administrative resources during its early development, and the fact that the Respondent worked continuously to build the business while gradually taking on additional drivers as demand increased. As the business evolved into a business‑to‑business courier service, greater pressures arose to deliver a reliable and high‑quality service, and issues were historically addressed in an informal manner.

The Respondent stated that all employees had since been issued with written terms and conditions of employment and that payslips were now provided routinely. It was further stated that the business had at all times been compliant with Revenue obligations, including VAT and statutory deductions, and that valid tax clearance certificates were held. The Respondent also stated that a HR consultancy had been engaged to assist with employment law compliance and that steps were underway to appoint an administrator to manage these matters on an ongoing basis.

The Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, as amended (the “TE(I)A”), sets out the core employment particulars which an employer is required to provide to an employee in writing. Section 3(1) of the Act places an obligation on employers to furnish an employee with a written statement of specified terms and conditions of employment within one month of commencement of employment.

In the instant case, the Respondent accepted that the Complainant was not provided with a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment until June 2025. As the complaint was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 9 July 2025, the relevant cognisable period commenced on 10 January 2025. Accordingly, there was a continuing breach of the Respondent’s statutory obligations under the TE(I)A during the period from 10 January 2025 until the written statement was furnished in June 2025.

In those circumstances, I find that a subsisting contravention existed within the cognisable period and, therefore, that the complaint is well founded.

I find that this complaint is well founded for the reasons set out above.

In deciding on an award of compensation, I note that the Respondent is a very small enterprise with very few employees and that, while it was well outside of the statutory timelines, the Complainant was ultimately provided with a copy of his written statement of his terms and conditions of employment in June 2025. Bearing this in mind, I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €700, namely one weeks’ pay, in respect of this complaint.