ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007267
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Data Centre Specialist | Storage Company |
Complaints:
|
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts |
CA-00009664-001 | 12/02/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 |
CA-00009664-002 | 12/02/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 2011 |
CA-00009664-003 | 12/02/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 25 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act, 2012 |
CA-00009664-004 | 12/02/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14th September 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints/disputes and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints/disputes.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Data Centre Specialist from 10th January 2015 to 10th February 2017. She was paid €369.00 per week. She has claimed she has raised a grievance under the I.R Act, she was discriminated against because of her race, contrary to the Employment Equality Act, she was penalised under the Criminal Justice Act and she was not treated the same under the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act. |
Preliminary Point - Jurisdiction
Representatives of the named Respondent advised the hearing that the Complainant was an agency worker and she was employed by a named Agency.
The Complainant has named the wrong Respondent in these proceedings and they have no role in this hearing.
The Complainant advised that she was employed by the named agency but was placed in a hirer company which is named as the Respondent is these proceedings.
Decision on the Preliminary Point
I have decided that the Complainant has named the incorrect Respondent as employer in these proceedings. Therefore, I have no jurisdiction to deal with these complaints made against the named Respondent as they were not the employer.
I have decided that these complaints are misconceived
1)Industrial Relations Acts CA-9664-001
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that this complaint is misconceived for the above stated reasons.
2) Employment Equality Act 1998 CA-9664-002
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 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 for the above stated reasons that this complaint is misconceived.
3) Criminal Justice Act 2011 CA-9664-003
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have decided for the above stated reasons that this complaint is misconceived.
4) Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012 CA-9664-004
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have decided for the above stated reasons that this complaint is misconceived.
Dated: 07/11/17
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
|