ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004119

Complaints for Resolution:

Venue: WRC; Lansdowne House, Dublin 4.

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/12/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79(6) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act 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.

Background

The Complainant was employed as an Agency Worker. She was last placed in a Bank on August 2013. Her placement ceased in January 2016. She was given redundancy payment on 29^th January 2016.

1) Industrial Relations Acts CA-00006115-001

The Complainant objected to this complaint being heard by an Adjudication Officer.

This complaint has been withdrawn by this action.

The Respondent also objected to this complaint.

2) Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act CA-00006115-002

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The Complainant stated that the Respondent breached the Act under the following headings;

No lump sum payment/ Bonus received but it was given to directly employed staff of the Hirer Company.

She was obliged to work Saturdays but directly employed staff of the Hirer did not

She was required to take certain days off against her wishes and directly employed staff of the Hirer Company did not.

She was obliged to pay for uniforms but directly employed staff of the Hirer Company did not.

She had to take Christmas and Easter breaks which were less advantageous than directly employed staff of the Hirer Company.

She was not paid sick pay unlike directly employed staff of the Hirer Company.

She did not get the same compassionate leave as directly employed staff of the Hirer Company.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Respondent stated that the only complaint made against them on the complaint form was that she was unfairly picked for redundancy due to age and discrimination.

These were new complaints which were not before this hearing and may not be adjudicated upon.

Findings

I note that the only complaint made against this Respondent was that the Complainant was unfairly selected for redundancy due to age and discrimination.

I find that the Complainant made a set of new complaints against the Respondent.

I find that these complaints were not known to the Respondent.

I note that no comparator was named.

I find that these were new complaints, not before this hearing.

I find that the Complainant presented no evidence regarding her actual complaint under this Act to the Commission which was that she was unfairly picked for redundancy due to age and discrimination.

Therefore I find that this actual complaint under Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act was misconceived.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I have decided that this complaint as presented to the Commission on the claim form for consideration was misconceived and so it fails.

3) Employment Equality Act CA-00006115-003

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation

The Complainant’s Representative advised the hearing that this complaint under this Act was against RESPONDENT 1 (Bank) not RESPONDENT 2 (Agency).

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

As no complaint has been made against them no response was necessary.

Findings

I note that the Complainant advised that they would not present a complaint against this Respondent.

I find therefore that this Respondent has no case to answer and that this original complaint was misconceived.

Decision:

Section 79(6) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.

I have decided that the original complaint against this Respondent is misconceived and so it fails.

Eugene Hanly

Adjudication Officer

Dated:   25 April 2017