This case concerned an appeal by the claimant of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation where he had been awarded €1,000 in compensation for the respondent’s breach of supplying details of certain particulars of the terms of employment within 2 months of commencement of employment, under section 3(1)(a)(b)(c)(j)(k) and (l) of the Terms of Employment Act, 1994. The claim for redress under section 5 of the Act, regarding notification of changes did not succeed.
The appellant contended that the value of his compensation was not compatible with the ECJ’s ruling in Colson & Kanmann v Land Nordrhein-Wesfalen (1984) ECR 1891 where it was held that the remedies proposed by national law when enforcing domestic legislation enacting the terms of a Directive should be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. The appellant who had been on an agreed leave of absence for a year and spent the time abroad, also claimed that he had not received written notification of changes to his contract, including the new address of his employer and change in Department of Education rates, as required under section 5 of the Act. The respondent gave evidence that the appellant was well aware of the respondent’s new address from correspondence between the parties and information in relation to his rate of pay as updated on payslips.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Rights Commissioner in respect of section 5 of the Act and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also affirmed the decision of the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation under section 3 of the Act and awarded the appellant €1,000.