Rapier Contract Services Ltd (Represented by Ms Claire Bruton B.L. Instructed by Hayes Solicitors) v Adina Predut

 
FREE EXCERPT

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

TE/17/11

DETERMINATION NO.TED182

ADJ-00001760 CA-00002369-001

PARTIES:
Rapier Contract Services Limited (Represented by Ms Claire Bruton B.L. Instructed by Hayes Solicitors)
and
Adina Predut
SUBJECT:
1

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00001760.

BACKGROUND:
2

2. This is an appeal under Section 8(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts, 1994 to 2014. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 November 2017. The following is the Court's Determination:

DETERMINATION:
3

The Complainant appealed against the decision of the Adjudication Officer ref no CA-00002369-001 issued on 25 January 2017. The appeal was filed with the Labour Court on 15 February 2017. The case came on for hearing before the Court on 10 November 2017.

Complaint
4

The Complainant submits that contrary to section 3 of the Act she did not, within the statutory time limit, receive a statement of her terms and conditions of employment.

5

The Complainant detailed her complaints as follows

1. Her first contract of employment referred to her as a General Operative when in fact she was employed as a receptionist.

2. Her second contract of employment described her as a Cleaner though she acknowledges that the job title in the Index for Statements of Main Terms of Employment describes the job title as Concierge.

3. At work she was required to undertake security duties that were not reflected in the statement of her terms and conditions of employment

4. The Statement of her terms and conditions of employment did not include a reference to her hours of work merely a reference to 48 hours work which could be rostered to be performed between Monday and Sunday of each week.

6

The Respondent submits that the Complainant received a statement of her terms of employment as required by s3 of the Act.

7

Copies of the signed documents were supplied to the Court.

8

Having examined those documents the Court finds that the Respondent complied fully with the terms of s3 of the Act.

Determination
9

The Complaint is not well founded. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed.

...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL