ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001107

Complaints for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/07/2016

At:          Workplace Relations Commission, Dublin 4.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

The Complainant was employed by the first named Respondent from 2^nd December 2013 as a Technical Employee. He was provided with a written statement of his Terms and Conditions of Employment in December 2013 – Copy provided to the Hearing. The Complainant’s Position was made redundant by Respondent 1 by letter dated 30^th April 2015 – copy provided, Notice was to expire on 4^th October 2015.

The Complainant referred a number of complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission on 12^th December 2015 alleging that six Named Respondents (Respondents 2,3,4,5,6,7 )had breached the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and that Respondent 2 had also breached the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 in relation to consultation.

Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – 2015.

Preliminary Issue

The Complainant was employed by the first named Respondent from 2^nd December 2013 and the employment terminated on 4^th October 2015.

Section 8 (1) (a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, as amended provides as follows:

A claim by an employee against an employer for redress under this Act for unfair dismissal may be referred by the employee to the Director General and, where a claim is so referred, the Director General shall, subject to section 39 of the Act of 2015, refer the claim to an adjudication officer for adjudication by that officer.

Section 1(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 as amended provides as follows:

“dismissal” in relation to an employee, means – (a) the termination by his employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given”.

Again under Section 1 (1) of the 1977 Act defines an employee as “an individual who has entered into or works under….a contract of employment” and employer is defined in relation to an employee “the person by whom the employee is…employed under a contract of employment”

There was no evidence presented to me either by way of submission or in evidence at the Hearing that the Complainant had ever been employed by Respondents 2,3,4,5,6,7 after his employment with Respondent 1 terminated on 4^th October 2015

Decisions

CA-00001424-001:

I declare I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint against the second named Respondent as the Complainant did not provide any evidence to the Adjudication Officer that he had been employed by the named Respondent after 4^th October 2015 when his employment with the first named Respondent terminated.

CA-00001425-001

I declare I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint against the third named Respondent as the Complainant did not provide any evidence that he had been employed with the Respondent after 4^th October 2015 when his employment with the first named Respondent terminated.

CA-00001426-001

I declare I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint as the Complainant did not provide any evidence that he had been employed by Respondent 4 after the termination of his employment with the First Named Respondent on 4^th October 2015.

CA-00001427-001

I declare I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint as the Complainant did not provide any evidence he had been employed by the fifth Respondent after 4^th October 2015 when his employment with the first named Respondent ended.

CA-00001428-001

I declare I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint as the Complainant did not present any evidence at the Hearing that he had been employed by the sixth Respondent after his employment with the first named Respondent terminated on 4^th October 2015.

CA-00001429-001

I declare I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint as the Complainant did not provide any evidence at the Hearing that he had been employed by the seventh Respondent after 4^th October 2015 when his employment terminated with the first named Respondent

European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings Regulations) 2003.

Preliminary Issue.

This complaint against Respondent 2 is that the Respondent breached Regulation 8 in that the Respondent did not consult with the Complainant prior to the Transfer of Undertaking.

The evidence shows that Respondent 4 was sold 4 Aircraft between 2^nd July 2015 and 7^th July 2015 according to letters issued to the Irish Aviation Authority by the First Named Respondent dated 23^rd June 2015.

The evidence shows that Respondent 5 was sold 6 Aircraft between 26^th June 2015 and 1^st July 2015 by the first named Respondent according to letters to the Irish Aviation Authority dated 23^rd June 2015.

The evidence shows that 4 Aircraft were sold to Respondent 3 between 25^th June 2015 and 8^th July 2015 according to letters issued to the Irish Aviation Authority by the first named Respondent on 23^rd June 2015.

There was no evidence presented to the Adjudication Officer that any of the Aircraft had been sold to the second named Respondent.

Decision CA-0000`1427-002

I declare I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint as the Complainant did not provide any evidence that there was a Transfer of Undertaking to Respondent (2) after his employment with Respondent (1) terminated on 4^th October 2015.

Rosaleen Glackin

Adjudication Officer

Date:     02/12/2016