ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060862

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Gytis Lisinskas	Interior Creations Limited (amended on consent)

Representatives

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-00073650-001	22/07/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/05/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer

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 by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The Complainant gave evidence on Affirmation. It was his complaint that he did not received a contact of employment.

The Respondent was represented by Mr. McLaughlin, Store Manager, who gave evidence on Affirmation.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Driver/Helper from 23 January 2025 until 17 July 2025. He worked 40 hours per week and was paid €550 gross per week.

The Complainant submitted that, despite repeatedly requesting clarification regarding his employment status following the expiry of his probationary period, he never received confirmation as to whether he had become a permanent employee. He stated that he sought a contract of employment setting out his status and terms but that these requests were continually deferred and no further documentation was provided.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Mr McLoughlin gave evidence that the Complainant was provided with a written contract of employment within one week of commencing employment. He stated that the Complainant also received a copy of the safety statement, employee handbook and other relevant documentation. The Complainant signed both his contract of employment and that signed copies of those documents were retained by the Respondent. The witness gave further evidence that employees were provided with a copy of their contract for their own records.

Findings and Conclusions:

Section 3 (1) of Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 requires that the terms and conditions of employment be furnished to the employee.

Having heard the evidence of both parties I prefer the Respondent’s evidence. While a copy of the contract was not produced in evidence, Mr McLoughlin gave a clear account of the process of providing contracts, handbooks and safety statements to all employees at the outset of their employment. This is entirely at odds with the Complainant’s account.

For these reasons, I find 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.

I find the complaint is not well founded.

Dated: 11th September 2026.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer

Key Words: