ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003843
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012 | CA-00004311-001 | 10/05/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/11/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984, and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
With regards to the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012 I feel that I have been treated unfairly on a number of grounds which I will outline below. Recently I have been deprived of equal treatment in basic working conditions. Human resources have blocked me applying for job vacancies within the company. This for me means that the hirer has went against their obligation to allow me access to such vacancies that occur. Their reasoning behind this has been firstly, They claim that the store that I work in has reached the limit of staff that they can hire directly from the recruitment agency. Secondly HR have made a recent claim that I do not have enough sales experience for certain roles and as a result have BLOCKED ( HR and managerial words) me applying for any further jobs within the company. Evidence proves contrary to this as over the last number of months I have worked in the busiest store within the company and the store that has the most sales. If HR believe I do not have enough Sales experience why do they keep extending my contract on a monthly to monthly basis. In April I attended a second round interview in Three Ireland head office. Shortly afterwards I was informed that I was unsuccessful for the position and I asked for feedback through email which I still have evidence of. I didn't receive any feedback but was BLOCKED ( Managers Words) from applying for any other jobs. Weeks later when I persuaded this issue with my manager he got onto HR who eventually gave me feedback through an email. All of this has left me extremely unmotivated within my role and as a result other staff have used me not getting the position as a way of been on my back and telling me I am not good enough at my job. Also I believe Three Ireland are in breach of the anti-avoidance provisions. There has been a series of assignments of the same nature being constructed so as to prevent an agency worker from accumulating service within the hirer. As the interview was scored I haven't seen my score or seen the areas that I supposably fell down on. It is my belief that I was never going to get the position as somebody else was already ear marked but then why can they advertise for such position. I have countless emails with regards to all this. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The Claimant is an agency worker assigned to the Respondent. He has been made aware and has made application for multiple vacancies with them. In April 2016 he applied for the role of full time Sales Assistant based in Dundrum. He was successful in the first round and was invited to a second round interview. He was unsuccessful. He requested feedback from the interview and was given it on 14 April 2016 by the Respondent’s recruitment consultant.
Decision:
Section 41(4) 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.
I have considered the submissions of both parties. The claim has been made under the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012. It is clear from the evidence that the Claimant has applied for a number of positions with the Respondent. It is also clear that the Respondent has appointed other agency workers to permanent positions. I do not find the Respondent in breach of the 2012 Act.
I do not find the claim well founded and it fails.
Dated: 15 March 2017