FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GAEL TACA TEORANTA (REPRESENTED BY DIARMAID O CATHIAN SOLICITORS) - AND - MARK O' MAHONY DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. 1. The Respondent failed to employ the Claimant when a vacancy arose.
2. The Respondent failed to properly investigate a complaint of bullying and harassment made by the Claimant.
3. The Respondent acted unreasonably by requiring the Claimant, a participant in a labour market activation scheme to work up time lost through illness.
BACKGROUND:
2. As a preliminary issue the Court is asked to determine if it has jurisdiction to hear the cases before it. The Claimant states that he was effectively employed by the Respondent. The Respondent argues that the Claimant was employed on a Community Employment Project operated by another company Cork Arts and Education Ltd. He was placed with the Respondent but was not employed by it at the relevant or at any time. It argues that as there was no employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent no industrial dispute exists for the purposes of the 1946 Industrial Relations Act and accordingly the Court does not have the jurisdiction to investigate the matters before it.
Findings of the Court
The Court is satisfied that the Claimant is a worker and the Respondent is an employer and accordingly the Court has jurisdiction to consider the matter before it.
Substantive Issue
The Claimant outlines three disputes with the Respondent. The Court notes that the Claimant conceded in the course of the investigation into the matters before it that he was not employed by the Respondent but rather by Cork Arts and Education Ltd. He further accepted that he was placed with the Respondent as part of a Community Employment Project. Finally, he told the Court that he did not apply for the impugned vacancy when it arose.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the circumstances outlined above the Court finds that the substantive matters raised in this case are not ones the Respondent, a stranger to the Claimant, can be expected to address. The Respondent was not the Claimant's employer and any issues that arose between them were not, in the circumstances of this case, industrial disputes. The Respondent was not in a position to deal with the matters as the employer and was not in a position to remedy them in the manner in which the Court could reasonably recommend an employer to so do. While the Respondent may have had obligations to the Claimant they were not ones that stemmed from an employment relationship.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the worker's claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
17th June, 2015______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.