ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010438
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Delivery Driver | Energy Supplier |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00013845-001 | 11/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00013845-002 | 11/09/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/12/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerard McMahon
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
Background:
The complainant worked as a delivery driver for the energy supplier since October 1993. In April 2017 the supplier closed the depot where he worked. Other employees were alleged to have received redundancy payments, but he did not. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant worked as a delivery driver for the energy supplier since October 1993. In April 2017 the supplier closed the depot where he worked. Other employees received redundancy payments, but he did not. He also alleges that the respondent unilaterally terminated his employment without any process or explanation. Accordingly, he submitted complaints seeking redress under the Unfair Dimissals Act, 1977 and the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent does not accept that the complainant was an employee of the company. Hence, as he worked under a contract for services as opposed to a contract of service, this ‘preliminary’ issue effectively debars the processing of his claims under the aforementioned statutes. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having reviewed all information submitted in respect of this case, the Adjudication Officer finds that the complainant worked for the energy supplier on a ‘contract for services’ basis. This conclusion is reached on the basis of evidence presented in respect of mutuality of obligations, the level of autonomy and control that the complainant had over the work, the level of investment\risk that the complainant made\bore in respect of his work, his right to delegate the performance of services to persons whom he then paid directly, his direct dealings with State authorities in respect of his tax and social insurance payments and the non-application of the respondent’s employee policies to the complainant throughout the relevant period. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act. Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
As it is held on the preliminary issue that these complaints – for redress under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 and the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 - are made by a worker on a contract for services they cannot proceed. The claims are not well founded. |
Dated: 19 April 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerard McMahon
Key Words:
Contract of Service; Contract of Services. |